Appeal 2007-1364
Application 10/437,576
The following rejections are before us for review.
1. Claims 1, 3-7, 12, 13, and 15-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Stobb (Answer 3).
2. Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Stobb (Answer 4).
3. Claims 2 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Stobb and Motooka (Answer 4).
4. Claims 9-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Stobb in view of Appellants' Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) (Answer 4-5).
ISSUE
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 3-7, 12,
13, and 15-19 because Stobb fails to teach each and every claimed element. More
specifically, Appellants contend that Stobb fails to teach: a cutting blade that
interacts with an anvil element and a band-shaped conveying element that passes
around the anvil element (claim 1) (Appeal Br. 6-7); a band-shaped conveying
element that is a belt in a groove formed on the rotating anvil element, the depth of
the groove being smaller than a thickness of the band-shaped conveying element
(claim 3) (Appeal Br. 7); the belt is a toothed belt provided with reinforced
sections in regions where the cutting blade interacts with the belt during the cutting
operation (claim 4) (Appeal Br. 7); the toothed belt has a toothed side and a flat
side and is passed around the rotating anvil element with the toothed side and
around the cylinder with the flat side (claim 6) (Appeal Br. 8); the band-shaped
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013