Appeal No. 2006-0456 Page 9
Application No. 10/410,778
teachings of the prior art fail to suggest the language of claim
1. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is reversed. We additionally reverse the rejection of
claim 22 because independent claim 22 also recites that the four
rolls are in a substantially linear formation. The rejection of
independent claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is therefore
reversed. As claims 2-13, 23 and 24 depend from claims 1 and 22,
the rejection of claims 2-13, 23 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
is reversed.
We turn next to the rejection of claims 14-21 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Young in view of Kuo.
From our review of Young, we find that the reference is silent as
to the adjustability of the decurler. From the disclosure of
elastomer-layered drive roller 204 and 304 and pinch rollers 202
and 302 (col. 7, lines 22-24, 39 and 40) we find that Kuo
discloses both compressible and substantially uncompressible
rolls. From Kuo’s disclosure (col. 4, lines 28-33 and col. 10,
lines 21-23) we find a teaching of providing adjustability of the
two decurling nips. However, we find from the disclosure of Kuo
(col. 7, lines 44-46) that the axes of elastomeric drive rolls
302 and 304 are fixed with respect to the side frames 230 and
that the opposing pinch shafts 202 and 302 are connected to the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007