Appeal 2007-0512
Application 10/310,744
C. Discussion
Anticipation by Hubbard
The only error raised by Appellants with respect to the rejection over
Hubbard is whether the apparatus shown in Hubbard Figure 7 can produce a
substantially continuous width welded seam. We hold that all other
arguments previously made before the Examiner and not repeated in the
appeal brief have been waived.
The critical part of Figure 7 is reproduced here:
Part 40 is a nozzle that delivers hot air through the flattened opening facing
weld roller 63. In Appellants' words, "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 singe continuous weld across the entire width of the weld wheel as
in the present invention." (Appeal Br. at 12.) Appellants do not rely on any
evidence, other than Hubbard itself, in support of their arguments. In
response, the Examiner answers: "[t]he provision of the softer rubber
material between the harder rubber components on wither [sic: either] side
-13-
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013