Appeal No. 2005-2297 Παγε 6
Application No. 10/143,209
We do not agree. Wessman describes scanners 12 which detect the presence of
the web. Wessman does not describe the measurement of forces on the web.
Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection as it is directed to claim 17 and claims 18 to
20 dependent thereon.
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 to 7, 10 to 12 and 17 and 18
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being unpatentable over Shiba. In support of this
rejection, the examiner states:
Shiba discloses a [sic, an] adjustable web folding system comprising an
adjustable folding detour DR, NR1, NR2; first and second sensors 41 and
51 for measuring tension of web WS; guide GR; see figure 2. The web
detour is adjusted by cylinders 1 and 2 due to the magnitude of a resultant
force signal generated by output device 6; see column 8, lines 15-20
[answer at page 4].
Shiba describes a control device for paper traveling tension which includes
detectors 41, which detect the paper tension on the web (Figure 2; col. 5, lines 49 to
51). The pressure force on the propeller rollers W against the drag roller DR is changed
in response to a determination that the paper tension is not within a reference control
range (col. 7, lines 17 to 42). Neither the drag roller (DR) nor the nipping rollers (NR1
and NR2) are adjusted. As such, even if we considered these elements to be folding
detours, there is no description of adjusting the “position of said adjustable folding
detour” as recited in claim 1 or of “ said folding angle is adjustable” as recited in claim
17. Therefore, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and claims 2 to 7,
10 to 12 dependent thereon and claims 17 and claim 18 dependent thereon.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007