Appeal No. 2006-1557 Παγε 8
Application No. 10/220,514
Thus, we shall also affirm the examiner’s anticipation rejection of dependent
claims 21 and 22, on this record.
Claims 20 and 25-28
Appellants argue these claims together (brief, page 6).
Thus, we select independent claim 20 as the representative claim
on which we shall decide this appeal as to this claim grouping.
Appellants (brief, page 6) argue that Elger cuts the web “at
the output of the machine, i.e., outside of the paper machine,
subsequent to complete processing of the raw paper web 2" (brief,
page 6). In alleged contrast, appellants (brief, page 6) point
to the claim 20 requirement for a “means for dividing the base
web into at least two part-webs before the separation of the
finished product by cutting it in a traverse manner from the web
on the production line and before the final processing stage
preceding separation.” Appellants essentially maintain that
Elger fails to teach the web-cutting (dividing) location, as
required by the above-noted limitation of representative claim
20.4
4 Appellants (brief, page 6) do not argue that claim 20 requires a cutting device
that patentably distinguishes over the cutting blades that appellants acknowledge to be
disclosed in the drawing figure of Elger. See 37 CFR 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007