Appeal 2007-0487
Application 09/759,993
As for the argued lack of a pivoting ability or pivoting elements for
the framework in Apollonio, as variously asserted in the Brief and Reply
Briefs, we note that representative claim 22 does not require or specify any
particular structure, including pivot members, for mounting the frame and
rolls for use in removing an adhesive film from a substrate. Rather,
which applied force is resisted by the adhesive power of the adhesive
tending to hold the film to the substrate. This is not unlike how pulling on
an affixed rope results in tension in the rope to the extent that the affixture is
capable of resisting the pulling force. The pulling or peeling force applied to
the film would also act on the substrate through the pulling action on the
adhesive film just like a pulled affixed rope would, in turn, apply a pulling
force that acts on the structure to which the rope is affixed. In this regard,
we interpret the claimed functional limitation regarding transfer of tension
experienced by the film to a force acting on the substrate via a spaced
support roll as requiring a support roll or rolls that are capable of applying
some force or load to the substrate during a film removal operation using the
winding roll.
In the event of further prosecution of this subject matter before the
Examiner in this application or a continuing application, however, the
Examiner should consider whether or not a § 112, first and/or second
paragraph rejection should be introduced with regard to any claims broadly
reciting this claimed transferring tension functionality. In this regard,
Appellants may wish to submit a force diagram comparing how all of the
forces act and are distributed for the prior art apparatus during film removal
and for the claimed apparatus by a recognized expert to establish what
apparatus feature of a subcombination of a frame and two rolls, as disclosed
and claimed by Appellants, differs from the applied prior art such that a
tension experienced by a film during peeling is transferred as a
[compressive] force to the substrate (as opposed to applying a pulling force
on the substrate) when using Appellants’ subcombination frame and rolls,
but not when using the applied prior art subcombination frame and rolls. In
this regard, it would seem that any dissipation (transfer) of film tension
would appear to result in less film tension, not a conversion of the film
tension to another force, such as a compressive force. In any event,
representative claim 2 is drawn to an apparatus, not a method of removing a
film.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013