Appeal No. 2006-0774 6
Application No. 09/952,349
transverse stroke of a yarn guide to modify the amount of yarn
deposited at the package edge regions adjacent the yarn guide
reversal points, neither Mayer nor Lieber describes using a
predetermined mass distribution (F) of the yarn on a
hypothetically wound ideal yarn package as the starting point to
determine a stroke modification function (Z), or the computation
of such a mass distribution (F) in the manner required in the
claims on appeal. Nor do we see that those aspects of
appellant’s claimed method are necessarily present in the
apparatus or processes disclosed in Mayer and Lieber.
Mayer specifically focuses on acceleration and/or
deceleration of the yarn guide over the reversal length so as to
modify the amount of yarn deposited in the package edge regions,
and expressly notes (col. 1, lines 47-51) that such corrected
yarn deposit takes place in the edge regions “irrespective of a
stroke modification and irrespective of the length of the
transverse stroke.” Lieber approaches the problem in an entirely
different way by relying on a modified stroke cycle that ensures
that the yarn reversal points are substantially evenly
distributed in the end regions of a cross-wound package. To that
end, Lieber notes in column 2, lines 57-62, that to obtain an as
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007