Appeal No. 2002-2125
Application No. 09/078,914
the combination of Doane and Jackson and Popat which render the
instantly claimed invention obvious. Additionally, we have not
observed a requirement in Doane that the labels must always be
pre-printed. Finally, the Jackson printer discloses motivation
for its addition - the inclusion of on-line printing of
personalized information. (Abstract, lines 4-6). We therefore
are not persuaded by these arguments relating to dependent claims
11, 20, and 21.
The appellants have also argued claim 19 separately, in that
it discloses a conveyor system including a plurality of clamps for
gripping respective ones of the printed products, which is said
not to be suggested by the cited references. (Appeal Brief, page
10, lines 1-6).
The examiner has stated that providing lugs or clamps for
engaging each article would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to provide means to ensure feeding of the
articles in overlapping relationship. (Examiner’s Answer, page 5,
lines 18-20).
Although we find that retention of placement on a conveyor is
well known, as evidenced by the lugs in Doane (column 2, line 32)
we cannot say that the claimed clamps are rendered obvious by the
lugs without evidence in the record to support this conclusion.
We therefore reverse this rejection as it applies to claim 19.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007