Ex Parte CONZELMANN et al - Page 2




             Appeal No. 2001-1210                                                               Page 2                
             Application No. 09/255,990                                                                               


                                                  BACKGROUND                                                          
                    The appellants' invention relates to a method for two-sided printing of a sheet of                
             printing material having a front side and a rear side, in a sheet-fed rotary printing press              
             (specification, p. 1).  A copy of the claims under appeal is set forth in the appendix to                
             the appellants' brief.                                                                                   


                    The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the                   
             appealed claims are:                                                                                     
             Wood                                      1,089,453                   Mar. 10, 1914                      
             Dietz et al. (Dietz)                      3,586,437                   June 22, 1971                      
             Grindley et al. (Grindley)                4,082,037                   April 4, 1978                      
             Wirz                                      5,259,308                   Nov. 9, 1993                       
             Takeuchi                                  5,642,670                   July 1, 1997                       



                    The following four rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 set forth in the final rejection              
             are before us in this appeal:                                                                            
             (1) Claims 1, 4 and 10 to 12 as being unpatentable over Wood in view of Grindley;                        
             (2) Claims 2, 3 and 6 to 8 as being unpatentable over Wood in view of Grindley and                       
             Wirz;                                                                                                    
             (3) Claim 5 as being unpatentable over Wood in view of Grindley and Takeuchi; and                        
             (4) Claim 9 as being unpatentable over Wood in view of Grindley and Dietz.                               








Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007