Appeal No. 1998-1868
Application 08/514,377
and the examiner with regard to the merits of these
rejections.
Turning first to the 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
rejection, the examiner considers independent claims 1 and 6,
and claims 30 and 31 which depend from claim 6, to be
indefinite because
[i]n claims 1 and 6, the tool is described as
moving “in a direction that is substantially
perpendicular to the plane of the printed products
and with a movement component that is in the feed
direction”. This phrase is confusing because the
tools do not move “substantially perpendicularly to
the plane of the printed product” [answer, page 2].
The phrases in question, however, no longer appear in
claims 1 and 6 as a result of the amendments filed with the
reply brief (see footnote 2, supra). The examiner has not
explained, nor is it apparent, why claims 1 and 6 as amended
are still indefinite. Accordingly, we shall not sustain the
standing 35 U.S.C. § 112, rejection of these claims or of
claims 30 and 31 which depend from claim 6.
As for the standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection, Evans
discloses a direct drive cut-off machine wherein the cyclic
speeds of the cut-off knives are electronically controlled to
cut a continuous pre-printed corrugated web into sheets or
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007