Appeal No. 2006-1067 Page 3
Application No. 09/822,839
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding this appeal, we make reference to the examiner's answer
(mailed July 13, 2005) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections and to the appellant’s brief (filed August 25, 2004) and reply brief (filed
September 13, 2005) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
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, and to the respective
positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As explained below, we cannot
sustain either of the examiner’s rejections.
Monsees discloses a stack turner 10 that allows for movement both in a lateral
direction as well as along an inverted u-shaped path for keeping a hopper of a carton
prefeeder filled with carton blanks. The stack turner replaces a human worker who
picks up stacks of blanks accumulated on an outfeed conveyor of a blank forming
device, inverts them and places them in the hopper of the prefeeder. As illustrated in
Figures 3A through 3H, the stack turner 10 comprises a lower portion 15 and an upper
portion 50, the upper portion including a clamp 53 formed by upper plate 54, lower plate
55 and rear registration wall 66 and the lower portion including a cabinet structure 16
having means for moving the clamp 53 from a first position (Figure 3B) where it can pick
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007