Appeal No. 1998-1868
Application 08/514,377
in the field of the invention.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejection of claims 1 and 6, or of dependent claim
30, as being anticipated by Evans.
We also shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claims 1, 6, 30 and 31 as being unpatentable over
Long in view of Evans.
Long discloses “[a]n envelope opener comprising first,
second and third shear stations for shearing three edges of an
envelope in sequence one edge at a time” (Abstract). Each of
the shear stations 26, 38 and 50 includes a stationary anvil
and a rotatable barrel having a pair of shear blades mounted
on opposite sides thereof and a longitudinal opening
intermediate the blades. Each envelope to be sheared is
conveyed into contact with the barrel, cut by one of the
blades in conjunction with the stationary anvil and passed
through the opening in the barrel (see column 2, line 65 et
seq.).
In short, there is nothing in the combined teachings of
Long and Evans which would have suggested a method or
apparatus meeting the above discussed limitations in
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007