Appeal 2007-1364
Application 10/437,576
element and acting as a counter-pressure element for the cutting blade of the
cutting device; and a cylinder having a signature transport surface. Furthermore,
claim 1 requires the cutting device include a cutting blade arranged on the cylinder
and the rotating anvil element interact with the cutting blade.
An embodiment of Stobb teaches a paper web cutter including a conveyer
cylinder 96, cutters 87, timing belt 93, and pulley 102 (Finding of Fact 4-6). The
pulley 102 presses the timing belt 93 downwardly and against the circumference
97 of the conveyer cylinder 96 during the web cutting process (Finding of Fact 6).
Therefore, the pulley 102 interacts with the cutter 87 as it provides pressure to
secure the timing belt 93 against the circumference of the cylinder 96. Appellants
argue that the pulley 102 of Stobb is not an “anvil” and therefore does not
“interact” with the cutter 87 (Appeal Br. 6).
To determine whether Stobb’s pulley 102 is the claimed “anvil” requires us
to interpret the meaning of this term. We first note that the term “anvil” is not used
in the present application in accordance with its common meaning (Finding of Fact
18). We further note that the Specification does not supply any special meaning to
the term “anvil” or “anvil element” (Finding of Fact 17). Although the
Specification, specifically Figure 4, illustrates that the anvil element includes a
grooved rubber cutting element 18 for receiving the cutting blade, this limitation is
not recited in claim 1. In addition, in view of the theory of claim differentiation,
the inclusion of this limitation in dependent claims 18 and 19 supports a broader
interpretation of an anvil element in claim 1. The Specification does describe that
the function of the rotating anvil element 16 is to provide support for the rotating
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013