Appeal 2006-1042
Application 10/208,131
claim 34. Nor is there any indication from the drawings of Barut that the
rollers adjust the lateral position of the sheet (4) as the web passes through
the rollers” (Br. 13).
We note that Appellants' argument gives a “widthwise” correction as
an example of what is meant by the claim term “laterally.” Therefore,
Appellants implicitly concede that “laterally” is not limited to a widthwise
correction. Particularly in light of this concession, we interpret the above
argued limitation to include the type of previously discussed correction
which occurs in Barut. It follows the Appellants' claim 34 argument is
unpersuasive for reasons explained above with respect to claim 14.
Accordingly, we sustain the anticipatory rejection of
claim 34 over Barut.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting all appealed claims is
affirmed.
15
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007