Appeal 2007-1364
Application 10/437,576
conveying element is manufactured over its entire length from a material resistant
to damage by the cutting blade, and the further rotating band-shaped conveying
element is manufactured from a material not resistant to cuts from the cutting blade
(claim 13) (Appeal Br. 8); the rotating band-shaped conveying element is passed
around the rotating anvil element via deflection pulleys in such a way that, with
respect to the rotation center of the cylinder, the rotating band-shaped conveying
element is guided on and in contact with the perimeter of the cylinder over a
predetermined angular range before a point of interaction of the cutting blade and
the anvil element (claim 16) (Appeal Br. 8-9); the rotating anvil includes a cutting
rubber element (claim 18) (Appeal Br. 9); and the rotating anvil element includes a
grooved strip (claim 19) (Appeal Br. 9). Appellants further contend that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 9-11 and 14 because the Examiner’s proposed
modification to Stobb “appears not to be possible or desirable” (claim 9) (Appeal
Br. 9), or is not needed (claim 10) (Appeal Br. 10). Finally, Appellants contend
that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2 and 8 because the combination fails to
teach each and every claimed element (Appeal Br. 10).
The issues before us are:
(1) Whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1, 3-7, 12, 13, and 15-19 as anticipated by Stobb.
(2) Whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 14 as unpatentable over Stobb.
(3) Whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 2 and 8 as unpatentable over Stobb and Motooka.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013