Appeal 2007-2107
Application 10/190,123
portions, and only completely separating into rows after processing but
before the winding operation. As further shown by factual finding (7) listed
above, we determine that Jackson clearly teaches that other processing,
which one of ordinary skill would have interpreted as including stamping or
punch pressing, should occur between the first and second (complete)
separation stages. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that Jackson
teaches and suggests the benefits of keeping the portions of the web as a full
width web material until just before complete separation into rows for
winding into an end use roll.
As shown by factual findings (8) and (9) listed above, and not
contested by Appellant (Br. 23), we determine that the perforated lines
taught by Marco would have been within the scope of the lines of weakness
contemplated by Jackson to facilitate separation in the first and/or second
stage.
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, we affirm
both rejections presented in this appeal. The decision of the Examiner is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED
clj
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013