Appeal 2007-0487
Application 09/759,993
a film removing apparatus including structure substantially corresponding to
Appellants’ claimed apparatus as noted above and further discussed by the
Examiner (Supplemental Answer 6).
Appellants do not contend that Apollonio does not describe structure
corresponding to the recited motor of representative claim 22.3 Rather,
Appellants seemingly base their argument against the Examiner’s
anticipation determination on the contention that Apollonio’s described film
removal apparatus does not disclose arranging the winding roll and support
roll on the frame thereof such that the structure would be capable of
transferring tension applied to a film during film removal to the substrate
holding the film, as required by representative claim 22.
Similarly, concerning the Examiner’s anticipation rejection over
Kuroda, the Examiner has found that Kuroda describes an apparatus for
removing adhesive tape (film) from a substrate. The apparatus was found to
include a take-up (winding) roll (19) and a compressive (support) roll (8)
attached to framework of the tape peeling unit (16), with the rolls located a
distance apart from each other (Supplemental Answer 4, 5, and 7-9; Kuroda,
Fig. 8 and Fig. 13). Appellants do not contest the anticipation rejection over
Kuroda based on the motor limitation of representative claim 22. Rather, the
thrust of Appellants’ argument against the Examiner’s rejection as applied to
representative claim 22 basically centers on the functionality specified for
the claimed apparatus as expressed in the wherein clause of claim 22.
3 Arguments not made in the Brief are considered to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). In any event, we note that the implied winding
function associated with Apollonio’s described winding reel (24) would
have inherently conveyed/described a motor (either hand operated, electrical
or mechanical) was part of or connected to the winding reel of Apollonio.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013