Appeal 2007-1364
Application 10/437,576
Appellants argue claim 19 separately. Claim 19, which depends from claim
1, further requires that the rotating anvil element includes a grooved strip.
Appellants argue that Stobb fails to disclose a grooved strip as claimed (Appeal Br.
9). Stobb does not teach that the pulley 102 includes a grooved strip as claimed.
The Examiner fails to address this limitation. As such, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
REJECTION OF CLAIMS 9-11 AND 14 UNDER
35 U.S.C. §103(A) AS UNPATENTABLE OVER STOBB
Appellants argue claims 9 and 11 as a separate group. We select claim 9 as
a representative claim, and claim 11 thus stands or falls with claim 9. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2006).
Claim 9, which depends from claim 1, further requires that the rotating
conveying element rotate at a reduced speed in relation to the signature transport
surface such that a gap is formed between the cutting blade and a leading edge of
the material web after the cutting operation. In rejecting claim 9, the Examiner
asserts that it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to “modify the
speeds of the relevant operating parts in order to create spacing between products
to allow for downstream processing as desired” (Answer 5). Appellants argue that
the proposed modification “appears not to be possible or desirable with Stobb, as
the belt 93 appears to need to move at the same speed as the cylinder” (Appeal Br.
9). We disagree.
In an embodiment of Stobb, the conveyors 43 are operated at a speed faster
than the speed of the web at the location of contact with the drums (Finding of Fact
15
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013