Ex parte MILLER - Page 3

                    Appeal No. 95-3178                                                                                                                                         
                    Application 08/055,477                                                                                                                                     

                              The full text of the examiner's rejections and response to                                                                                       
                    the argument presented by appellant appears in the answer (Paper                                                                                           
                    No. 14), while the complete statement of appellant's argument can                                                                                          
                    be found in the brief (Paper No. 13).                                                                                                                      
                              In the brief (page 3), appellant points out that the                                                                                             
                    following groups of claims do not stand or fall together and are                                                                                           
                    argued separately: claims 1 through 5 and 8; claim 6; and claim                                                                                            
                    7.  As to the first claim grouping, like appellant in the brief                                                                                            
                    (page 3), we focus out attention, infra, exclusively upon claims                                                                                           
                    1 and 8, with claims 2 through 5 standing or falling with claim                                                                                            

                              In reaching our conclusion on the anticipation issues raised                                                                                     
                    in this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully considered                                                                                           
                    appellant's specification  and claims, the applied references,4                                                                                                      

                    and the respective viewpoints of appellant and the examiner.  As                                                                                           

                              4Appellant's "Background Of The Invention" section of the specification                                                                          
                    (page 1) informs us that prior to the present invention it was a known method                                                                              
                    of sealing an envelope to drive the envelope between a pair of rollers and                                                                                 
                    then deflect a lower edge of the envelope upwards against a resilient stop.                                                                                
                    When the envelope is decoupled from the rollers, the resilient stop and the                                                                                
                    force of gravity urge the upper edge of the envelope into the nip of a second                                                                              
                    pair of rollers to fold and seal the envelope flap against the rear panel of                                                                               
                    the envelope. As further disclosed, to avoid buckling the envelope as it is                                                                                
                    deflected, the deflecting surface is typically curved so that the rate at                                                                                  
                    which the lower edge is deflected is limited so that thicker, stiffer                                                                                      
                    envelopes do not buckle.                                                                                                                                   

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007