Ex Parte Haga et al - Page 3

                Appeal 2007-2560                                                                             
                Application 10/310,356                                                                       

                cross at the pivot point of mechanism 5.  Hence, the dispositive issue on                    
                appeal is whether the paths taken by sheets of material 11 and 12 of Shingu                  
                to shelf 6 in fact cross at a crossing point, as presently claimed.  Our review              
                of the reference and the language of the appealed claims finds us in                         
                agreement with the Examiner’s position.                                                      
                      As acknowledged by Appellants, “[i]f one were to draw a line                           
                representing the path of sheet material along table B, through mechanism 5,                  
                and onto lower table 6, and then draw a second line representing the path of                 
                sheet material along table B, through mechanism 5, and onto upper table 6,                   
                the two paths would make a “Y” shape” (principal Br. 6, first para.).                        
                Consequently, we find it reasonable to conclude that the paths of the two                    
                sheets, represented by the upper angled portions of the letter “Y,” cross at                 
                that point where they converge at the vertical segment of the letter “Y.”                    
                Hence, we find no error in the Examiner’s position that the paths of the two                 
                reference sheets cross at the pivot point of mechanism 5.  Furthermore, the                  
                paths of the reference sheets are lines, or two-dimensional planes, that                     
                extend infinitely and cross at the pivot point of mechanism 5.  Likewise, the                
                presently claimed paths of the cover material and ticket substrate are not                   
                concrete, structural elements of the claimed apparatus, but merely abstract                  
                lines or planes that intersect at a crossing point.  Accordingly, we find no                 
                patentable distinction between apparatus within the scope of the appealed                    
                claims and the apparatus fairly described by Shingu.                                         
                      In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by                   
                the Examiner, the Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims is                       
                affirmed.                                                                                    


                                                     3                                                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013