Appeal No. 2006-3197
Application No. 10/302,215
appellant argues that the goal of the load element in Jackson is to provide a
constant pressure when the folding rollers are forced apart rather than a
disproportionate rise in restoring force (i.e. nonlinear force) as claimed.
In response to appellant’s arguments the examiner states on pages 3
and 4 of the answer:
Jackson et al show a load element 36 that has nonlinear expansion
force characteristics. The force characteristics are disposed at one of
the folding rollers as claimed since the force is acting on the rollers.
The nonlinear expansion force is inherent in the elastomer means 36
which will expand in a nonlinear manner as it is inflated or deflated.
Examiner is interpreting nonlinear expansion characteristic in a broad
context.
We disagree with the examiner’s findings. Claim 1 recites “a plurality
of folding rollers mounted and loaded at ends thereof and a load element
having a nonlinear expansion-force characteristic disposed at least on one of
said folding rollers for loading.” We note that the term loading is not
specifically defined in appellant’s specification; however the text on pages 2
and 3 of appellant’s specification discusses the term as referring to a
restoring force acting on the rollers.
We do not find that Jackson teaches a load element which has a
nonlinear expansion force as claimed. Jackson teaches that a control bag,
item 36, is inflated and applies a desired level of force on the roller arms
while paper is being folded. See column 2, lines 46 through 50. Jackson
teaches that this force or pressure, which we consider to be a restoring force,
is a constant pressure, rather than an increasing pressure as would be in the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007