Appeal No. 2005-2297 Παγε 3
Application No. 10/143,209
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(mailed April 2, 2004) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections,
and to the brief (filed February 26, 2004) and reply brief (filed May 10, 2004) for the
appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Appellant’s claimed subject matter is an adjustable web folding system for folding
a web substrate. The system has a machine direction as depicted by the arrow marked
MD in Figure 1, a cross machine direction and a Z direction. The system includes an
adjustable folding detour 12 which is positioned so that its longitudinal axis is coincident
with the machine direction of the system. There is also one sensor 14 which measures
a physical characteristic of the web substrate prior to the web substrate contacting the
folding detour (Figure 1; specification at pages 5 to 6). Appellant’s specification
discloses that examples of the physical characteristics include:
. . . tension, opacity, caliper, shear, basis weight, denier, elongation, air
flow, stress, strain, modulus of elasticity, coefficient of friction, surface
finish RMS, yield strength, color, stiffness, bending modulus, temperature,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007