Appeal No. 2006-3197
Application No. 10/302,215
THE REJECTION AT ISSUE
Claims 1 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Jackson. Claims 2 through 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jackson in view of Christoffers. The
examiner’s rejections are on page 3 of the answer. Throughout the opinion
we make reference to the briefs and the answer for the respective details
thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the
rejections advanced by the examiner and the evidence of anticipation and
obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support for the rejections. We
have, likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our
decision, Appellant’s arguments set forth in the brief and reply brief along
with the examiner’s rationale in support of the rejections and arguments in
rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on appeal,
the examiner’s rejections and the arguments of appellant and the examiner,
for the reasons stated infra we will not sustain the examiner’s rejections of
claims 1 through 12.
Appellant argues, on pages 4 through 8 of the brief, that Jackson does
not anticipate independent claims 1 and 12 as Jackson does not teach using a
load element having a nonlinear expansion-force characteristic disposed on
at least one of the folding rollers for loading. On page 8 of the brief,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007