Appeal 2006-1042
Application 10/208,131
We note that Barut’s Figure 3 shows sheet 4 following a horizontal
path through the apparatus from the point where it leaves guide rollers 5 to
the point where the final product is received. Sheet 4 is drawn from a supply
roller 3 and is centered along that horizontal path. As the material from
roller 3 is depleted, it is apparent that the portion of the sheet 4 that extends
between the supply roller 3 and the guide rollers 5 will deviate from the
“centerline” of this horizontal path. That is, the portion of sheet 4 will
become angularly inclined, rather than horizontal, as the roller 3 becomes
depleted of material. Guide rollers 5 serve to maintain sheet 4 horizontally
centered along the path through Barut’s apparatus even when the position of
sheet 4 between supply roller 3 and guide rollers 5 becomes angularly
inclined. Thus, Barut’s guide rollers 5 perform the function of
“automatically centering the web of foldable material along a centerline of
the path [i.e., from a vertical perspective].”
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Barut.
Independent claim 34 differs from independent claims 1 and 18 in that
it does not require the pivoting function of the skis or the material guide.
Like claim 14, claim 34 requires a web straightener.
Appellants argue “Barut discloses a pair of rollers (5) through which
the sheet (4) passes upstream of the pleating track (6). There is no
disclosure anywhere in Barut, however, that the rollers are capable of
automatically correcting the position of the sheet (4) laterally (e.g.,
widthwise) of the sheet in the manner of the web straightener recited in
14
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007