Appeal No. 2005-2210 Παγε 9
Application No. 09/996,974
Read’s cylindrical housing 30, Swain does not teach or suggest a moving mechanism
operable to be actuated by a rotating action of a driving mechanism associated with a
roll loading shaft toward which the roll is moved, as called for in claim 11, and thus
could not provide any teaching or suggestion to provide such a mechanism in Read’s
coil handling device.
In light of the above, the rejection of claims 11-14 as being unpatentable over
Read in view of Swain cannot be sustained. The examiner’s application of Van Breen,
Rauh and Sano does not make up for the deficiency in the combination of Read in view
of Swain. Accordingly, the rejections of claim 15 as being unpatentable over Read in
view of Swain and Van Breen and claim 16 as being unpatentable over Read in view of
Swain, Rauh and Sano also cannot be sustained.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007