Appeal 2006-1042
Application 10/208,131
In response, the Examiner contends that Appellants’ argument
is not found persuasive because in order to adjust
the skis (7 or 8) in the apparatus of BARUT for
accepting [a] web of different thickness, the
mounting rods (12) must be adjusted along the
vertical slots on brackets (10) and the skis (7 or 8)
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. Therefore, the skis (7,8) of BARUT
are fully capable of pivoting adjustment about an
axis extending laterally of the longitudinal
direction of movement of the web through the
apparatus [Answer 7].
In reply, Appellants maintain:
Nowhere does Barut expressly disclose that the
pleating sections (7, 8) are pivotable about a
rotation axis of one of the rods. The Examiner's
position is therefore one of inherency, i.e., that the
pleating sections (7,8) of Barut are inherently
capable of being pivoted about a rotation axis of
one of the rods (12). However, there is no basis in
fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably
support the determination that the pivotable skis
recited in claim 1 necessarily flows from the
teachings of Barut [Reply Br. 3].
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007