Appeal No. 2005-2417
Application No. 09/999,660
approximately on a web path being meander-shaped, always curved
or non-rectilinear,” or that Reichel meets the same limitations
in independent claims 1 and 18. While both references disclose
rotary offset-printing machines having a cooling cylinder
arrangement located downstream of a dryer, neither goes into much
detail as to the spatial relationships between the cooling
cylinders. For purposes of treating the claim limitations at
issue, the examiner simply points to the sole drawing in Hahne
and Figure 1 in Reichel. These drawings, however, do not teach,
and would not have suggested, a cylinder arrangement wherein
material web looping sections passing over the cylinders are
connected for moving the material web along the looping sections
“at least approximately on a web path being meander-shaped,
always curved or non-rectilinear.” The examiner’s determination
to the contrary has no factual basis in the drawings or
underlying specifications of the references. The examiner’s
application of Tafel in combination with Hahne does not cure this
evidentiary deficiency.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejection of independent claims 1, 4, 18 and 30, and
dependent claims 3, 5, 10, 15-17, 19, 20, 31, 33 and 34, as being
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007