Appeal 2007-0512
Application 10/310,744
17. The Examiner finds that Hubbard describes, in Figure 7 and in the text
at column 5, ll. 63–66, and column 7, ll. 29-42, an apparatus that meets all
the limitations of the cited claims. (Answer at 5–6.)
18. In the Examiner's words, "[t]he pressure is applied by a variable
pressure assembly comprising a pressure roller (weld wheel) [63] made of
duo-durometer material having a soft elastomeric middle material and a
harder outer material on either side such that the harder outer material on
either side of the soft middle material provides a constant pressure source
and the soft elastomeric middle material provides a variable pressure source
in that it is compressed by protruding fastening means and conforms to the
shape of the protruding fastening means as it passes over the fastening
means (Figure 7; column 7, lines 29-42)." (Answer at 6.)
19. Appellants deny that Hubbard anticipates the claimed subject matter,
arguing that, "[a]t Column 7, lines 36-41, Hubbard teaches 'weld wheel 63
(the duo-durometer embodiment) must allow the roof membrane fasteners to
pass between the weld wheels or underneath the weld wheel and allow the
weld wheels to simultaneously press the first membrane 12 and the second
membrane 14 against the roof deck 16 on both sides of the roof membrane
fasteners.'" (Appeal Br. at 12; emphasis original.)
20. Appellants conclude that "Hubbard cannot form a substantially
continuous width seam since its center portion is provided to run over a
batten bar. Hubbard makes a dual weld on either side of the batten bar and
never a single continuous weld across the entire width of the weld wheel as
in the present invention." (Appeal Br. at 12.)
-10-
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013