Appeal No. 2000-2024
Application No. 09/059,207
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 25 and 26.
In reading these claims on Keeler, conveyor 24 would have to
be considered as constituting at least a part of the "first
conveying means," since attachment means 20 of Keeler is
installed over it. However, claims 25 and 26 further recite
installing a second conveying means in parallel with the first
conveying means; the only second conveyor disclosed by Keeler
which is in parallel with first conveyor 24 is the
corresponding conveyor in the parallel production line (Fig.
5), but that conveyor would not meet the additional
requirement that "said advancing of said container past said
attaching means [i.e., the attaching means installed over the
first conveying means] is performed by said second conveying
means" (claim 25) or "said advancing of said containers past
said dual attaching means is performed by said second
conveying means" (claim 26). Also, contrary to the examiner's
implication at page 2 of the final rejection, Keeler's
conveyor 26 cannot be read as constituting the claimed second
conveying means, because it does not advance container 12 past
attaching means 20, as required by the claim language quoted
above. Claims 25 and 26 therefore are not readable on Keeler,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007