Appeal No. 2006-1956
Application No. 09/935,917
1 means for sending, based on the first control
2 signal, a second control signal from the control
3 unit to the first perforating tool, to cause the first
4 perforating tool to assume the perforating position;
5 and
6 means for actuating, in response to receiving
7 the control signal from the control unit, the first
8 perforating tool to assume the perforating position
9 while the first sheet passes.
10
11 The Evidence
12 The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
13 unpatentability:
14 Hayamizu 4,721,058 Jan. 26, 1988
15 Moll 5,334,126 Aug. 02, 1994
16 Carter 5,787,780 Aug. 04, 1998
17
18 The Rejection
19 Appellant originally appealed from the Examiner’s rejection of claims
20 1, 2, 11, 14, 15, 17, 22, 23, 27, 28, 30, and 35-38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
21 as being unpatentable over Hayamizu in view of Moll. In the Answer
22 (mailed November 22, 2005), the Examiner re-stated the rejection as being
23 based on Hayamizu in view of Moll and Carter. The Examiner offers two
24 alternative theories for the rejection. Under the first theory, the Examiner
25 proposes modification of Moll in view of Hayamizu. Under the second
26 theory, the Examiner proposes modification of Hayamizu in view of Moll.
27 The Examiner states that “[t]he Carter reference does not structural [sic.]
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013