Appeal 2006-2370
Application 10/800,929
disposed opposite one another. The Specification discloses these two drive
rollers at page 3.
Appellant’s AAPA describes a wire feeding mechanism with a drive
roller having a groove formed by walls 126 and 128 which are at an angle
between thirty and sixty degrees (Specification 3; Fig. 5). In this prior art
device there is only one drive roller which is disposed opposite a flat idler
roller. The groove formed in the Fig. 5 device is not formed by opposing
intersecting side walls. Rather the side walls themselves never intersect but
rather are joined by a curved portion.
Gilliland discloses a wire feeding mechanism having two drive rollers
opposite one another and a groove disposed within each drive roller (Fig.
3B). Gilliland discloses that the use of two grooves, i.e., grooves on both
rollers, provides more contact with the wire than using the arrangement of a
single groove in one drive roller opposite a flat idler and therefore minimizes
the possibility of the rollers slipping on the wire while using the least
amount of pressure to grip the wire (Gilliland, col. 6, ll. 56-60). The groove
disclosed in Gilliland is not formed by opposing side walls that intersect.
The side walls never intersect but rather are joined by a flat portion.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
modify the device of Appellant’s Fig. 3B to include a groove on an opposite
drive roller to achieve the advantage of minimizing the possibility of roller
slippage on the wire while using the least amount of pressure to grip the
wire.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013