Appeal No. 2002-0072 Page 3
Application No. 08/956,912
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Claim 1
A device for forming a longitudinal fold in signatures being
conveyed by a conveyor system, comprising:
a delay mechanism selectively processing individual signatures
from a stream of signatures to form at least one signature grouping,
a folding blade disposed downstream of the delay mechanism and
parallel to a direction of forward travel of the at least one signature
grouping; and
a folding mechanism disposed below the folding blade, the folding
mechanism receiving each signature of the at least one signature
grouping and longitudinally folding all the signatures of the at least one
signature grouping simultaneously, wherein the folding blade is driven
between a first position and a second position, the folding blade in the
second position urging the signatures of the at least one signature
grouping toward the folding mechanism.
The Rejection Under Section 102
Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 7 and 8 stand rejected as being
anticipated by Kobler. Of course, anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, either expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007