The opinion
WORLEY, Chief Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
It seems to me the majority opinion imports a limitation into the claims that *599 the nip and entry of appellant’s device are at different angles. I find no such limitation to be present and no reversible error in the examiner’s and board’s application of the Roberts’ disclosure to the subject matter of claims 3 and 4, as well as claim 9. Accordingly, I would affirm the decision in its entirety.