Appeal 2006-2370
Application 10/800,929
2. Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Gilliland in view of Appellant’s disclosure page 1 line 15 to page
3 line 29 and Fig. 5 and Blank.
Appellant contends that the cited prior art does not disclose a pair of
intersecting walls defining a groove and that there is no motivation to
combine the teachings of the cited references.
The Examiner contends that the cited prior art does disclose a pair of
intersecting walls defining a groove and there is ample motivation to
combine the teachings of the cited references.
ISSUES
The first issue is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner
erred in finding that the prior art discloses a pair of intersecting walls
defining a groove.
The second issue is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner
erred in holding that there is motivation to combine the teachings of the prior
art.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Appellant’s claim 1 is directed to a wire feeding mechanism that
includes a pair of intersecting walls on a drive roller defining a groove.
Appellant’s disclosure describes this feature on page 8 and depicts this
feature in Fig. 3. Claim 14 similarly recites a wire feeding mechanism
which includes a drive roller having a groove formed by first side wall
intersecting a second side wall. The groove that is formed by the
intersecting walls is about thirty degrees or greater and less than ninety
degrees (Specification 8-9). Claims 1 and 14 require two drive rollers
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013