Appeal 2007-0487
Application 09/759,993
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Kuroda (U.S. Patent No.
5,891,298). Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Apollonio. Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Apollonio in view of Stadtmueller.2
§ 102(b) Rejections over Apollonio or Kuroda
Appellants bring this appeal with the concession that the rejected
claims pertaining to each of the separate anticipation rejections stand or fall
together as a group (Br. 6). We note that the Brief is incorporated by
reference in the Second Reply Brief filed June 12, 2006 (Second Reply Br.
1). Thus, we select claim 22 as the representative claim on which we shall
decide this appeal as to each of the anticipation rejections.
The apparatus of representative appealed claim 22 includes a winding
roll and a support roll. Each of these rolls are attached to a frame and
separated from each other by an unspecified fixed distance. A motor is
connected to the winding roll for rotating same and the support roll is
rotatably attached to the frame. The apparatus is asserted to have the
functional capability of transferring tension applied to an adhesive film
during film removal to a substrate from which the adhesive film is removed,
as compression through the support roll during the use of the apparatus for
removing an adhesive film from the substrate.
Apollonio describes a structure for removing film from a substrate
that includes framework, a winding reel (24) and a support roll (34) which
rolls are separated from each other by a distance. Thus Apollonio describes
2 The obviousness rejection of claim 23 was presented in a new ground of
rejection presented in the Answer mailed April 10, 2006 after a Remand
dated September 30, 2005.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013