Appeal No. 2006-0774 7
Application No. 09/952,349
precise package buildup as possible, the actual diameter of the
package and the angular position may be continuously determined,
so that the traversing yarn guide drive is controlled by a
control device as a function of the comparison between the
position of the starting reversal point and the position of the
ending reversal point. Again, as we indicated above, 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.
As for the examiner’s positions that the empirical
assumptions arrived at in Mayer and Lieber through trial and
error somehow equate to appellant’s computing of a mass
distribution on a hypothetically wound ideal yarn package, and
that a previously wound package in Mayer or Lieber can serve as a
“hypothetically wound ideal yarn package,” we find such
assertions to be without merit. A trial and error approach does
not equate to predetermined computation of a mass distribution
(F) of the yarn on a hypothetically wound ideal yarn package like
that described in appellant’s specification and required in the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007