Appeal 2006-1042
Application 10/208,131
bracket (10) and held in a desired positioned by a pair of nuts (Fig. 4), and
each mounting rod (12) has an axis extending laterally of the longitudinal
direction of movement of the web” (id.). The Examiner contends that “[i]n
[Barut’s] arrangement, the skis can be adjusted for different thickness of the
web material by adjusting an end mounting rod, at the entrance section for
example, along the vertical slots on the brackets (10) while the other end
mounting rod, at the exit section for example, is held in place such that the
skis (7 or 8) are pivoting about the axis of the held mounting rod during
adjustment” (id.).
Appellants argue that “[n]owhere does Barut disclose or otherwise
even suggest that the pleating sections (7, 8) are pivotable about an axis as
recited in claim 1, let alone an axis that extends laterally of the longitudinal
direction of movement of the web through the device” (Brief, page 6).
Appellants further argue that “[t]he only movement of the pleating sections
(7, 8) permitted by Barut’s device (and indeed the only movement disclosed
by Barut) is horizontal movement and vertical movement both of which are
translational and not pivoting movement about an axis” (id.). Appellants
also contend that “[t]here is no conceivable manner, let alone any manner
disclosed by Barut, to pivot the pleating sections about an axis that extends
normal to and out of the plane of the web as asserted by the Examiner” (Br.
8).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007