Appeal 2007-1364
Application 10/437,576
band-shaped conveying element in such a manner that the band-shaped conveying
element provides counter-pressure for the cutting blade during the cutting
operation (Finding of Fact 17). As such, we interpret anvil under its broadest
reasonable interpretation in view of the Specification to be an element which
provides counter pressure during the cutting process. Although Stobb discloses
embodiments, for example, those illustrated in Figures 1 and 4, where an anvil is
not needed because the conveyor belts function to hold the web taut during the
cutting process, Stobb specifically discloses that the pulley 102 of the embodiment
illustrated in Figure 12 functions as an anvil in as much as it “serves to press the
timing belt 93 downwardly and against the cylinder circumference 97 at the instant
that the web is being severed” (Finding of Fact 6). Accordingly, the pulley 102 of
Stobb provides counter pressure during the cutting process and, as such, functions
in the same manner as, and is equivalent to, the claimed rotating anvil element.
Appellants further argue that “Stobb teaches away from using the pulley as
an anvil element, since it purposely places the entire belt 93 between the pulley
102 and the knife 87 to [allegedly] prevent any interaction between the pulley 102
and the knife 87” (Appeal Br. 7). We disagree with Appellants’ interpretation of
Stobb. Although Stobb teaches placing the timing belt 93 between the pulley 102
and the cutters 87, nowhere in Stobb is there any teaching or suggestion of doing
so in order to prevent interaction between the cutters and the pulley. To the
contrary, Stobb teaches that pulley 102 is employed to press the timing belt 93
against the circumference 97 of the cylinder 96 at the point that the cutter 87 is to
severe the web (Finding of Fact 6). Clearly, the pulley 102 interacts with the cutter
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013