Appeal Number: 2006-1694
Application Number: 10/131,607
that, if no crossbow is introduced by the strip processing device, the crossbow
remains eliminated downstream of the strip processing device.
Claims 5-7
The examiner argues that the specification does not indicate what effect is
eliminated in claims 5-7 (answer, pages 6-7). As stated in claims 5 and 6 the effect
is waviness, and as stated in claim 7 the effect is strip camber.
The examiner argues that the specification does not instruct one skilled in
the art how the integration in claim 5 is performed and included in the control
signal, how the sliding mean value in claim 6 is computed and included in the
control signal, and how the filtering in claim 7 is performed or the control signal
modified (answer, pages 6-7). The examiner has not explained why the
specification would have failed to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to carry
out the recited integration, formation of the sliding mean value and filtering
without undue experimentation. The examiner’s mere assertion that the appellants’
references to those steps in the specification is speculative (answer, page 6) is not
adequate for carrying that burden.
Remand
As indicated above, the examiner’s interpretation of claim 3 as requiring
elimination of crossbow caused by the processing device is overly narrow. We
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013