Appeal 2006-2985
Application 10/702,225
The issue before us is whether the Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred
in finding that Fuss anticipates all of the elements of claim 1.
FINDINGS OF FACT
A preponderance of the evidence establishes the following facts:
Claim 1 recites a system comprising a dunnage supply, a positioning device,
and a stapler.
The claim recites that the dunnage supply has a converter that converts a
sheet stock material into a strip of “relatively less dense” dunnage.
The claim recites that the positioning device and the stapler then act on the
resultant strip(s) of “relatively less dense” dunnage provided from the converter to
juxtapose and connect portions of the strip(s) of dunnage.
The specification describes that the dunnage converter 30 of Figure 3
converts one or more plies of sheet stock material into a crumpled strip 20 of
“relatively less dense dunnage” (Specification 5: 20-22).
The specification does not otherwise use the phrase “relatively less dense” to
describe the converted dunnage.
Density is calculated as mass per unit volume.
The claim language “relatively less dense” means that the converted strip of
dunnage has less mass per unit volume than the starting sheet stock material.
Fuss discloses a system having a transverse die cutting station 70 that cuts
the continuous sheet of material 60 into connected strips 76 (Fuss, col. 6, ll. 23-28,
Figures 12-13).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013