Appeal 2006-2370
Application 10/800,929
ANALYSIS
Neither Gilliand nor AAPA describes a groove on a drive roller that is
formed by intersecting side walls. Therefore, the Appellant has shown that
the Examiner erred in finding that elements of claims 1 and 14 as taught by
the combination. On the record before us, it follows that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claims 1 and 14 and claims 2-5 and 15-20 dependent thereon.
There is motivation to combine the teachings of Gilliland and AAPA
so that the AAPA is modified to include two opposing drive rollers with a
groove in each drive roller. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have
been motivated to modify AAPA in this matter to achieve the advantages of
two drive rollers i.e. less roller slippage while using the least amount of
pressure. Therefore, the Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in
holding there was motivation to combine the teachings of Gilliland and
AAPA.
On the record before us, it follows that the Appellant has not shown
that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 6-10 as being unpatentable by
Gilliland and APA and rejecting claims 11-13 as being unpatentable by
Gilliland and AAPA and further in view of Blank.
CONCLUSION/ORDER
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-5 and 14-20 is not sustained.
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 6-13 is sustained. However, since
our reasons for sustaining the rejection as to these claims is materially
different from those set forth in the Answer, we denominate this as a new
ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §41.50(b) (2004).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013