Appeal No. 2001-1214 Page 7
Application No. 09/213,726
adjust the location of the rocker pivot 29, and thus the magnitude of axial reciprocation
of the distributor rollers 15a-d, in accordance with the operator's experience.
Claim 17 is not anticipated by Hummel for the reasons set forth by the appellants
in the brief (pp. 22-23). In the rejection of claim 17, the examiner determined that the
claimed first transmission member was readable on2 lever 28 of Hummel. We do not
agree. Lever 28 of Hummel is not a transmission member as set forth in claim 17 since
it is not in the distributor stroke transmission which transmits drive from press drive 18
to the distributing rollers 15a-d. Lever 28 of Hummel is part of the adjustment
mechanism that sets the position of the first pivot 29 and thus the magnitude of the
axial reciprocation of the distributing rollers during operation of the press. While the
claimed first transmission member may be readable on Hummel's link 21, the claimed
actuator for adjusting the coulisse being carried by at least one of the first and said
second transmission members is not readable on the structure taught by Hummel.
Accordingly, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 17, and claims 18, 19,
22 and 25 to 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Hummel is reversed.
2 The inquiry as to whether a reference anticipates a claim must focus on what subject matter is
encompassed by the claim and what subject matter is described by the reference. As set forth by the
court in Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d at 772, 218 USPQ at 789, it is only necessary for the
claims to "'read on' something disclosed in the reference, i.e., all limitations of the claim are found in the
reference, or 'fully met' by it."
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007