Appeal No. 95-3178
Application 08/055,477
the claimed stop means and resilient deflecting means
respectively of claim 1. Additionally, it is clear to us that in
operation the machine of Jaynes causes a deflecting of the lower
edge of the envelope (by "deflecting leaf") and after deflecting
effects simultaneously applying of a second smaller force (by
spring-arms 15a) to urge the envelope toward the intake to
rollers 3, 5, as required by steps of method claim 8.
The argument advanced by appellant (brief, page 5) is not
convincing. In particular, for the reasons addressed, supra, we
do not share appellant's point of view that the rollers 3 and 4
disclosed by Jaynes would apply a rearward force to the envelope
even before any deflection might occur.
Claim 6
As to the rejection of claim 6, it is apparent to this panel
of the board that the subject matter thereof is not anticipated
by the Jaynes patent. More specifically, we are of the opinion
that the fixed ends of the "deflecting leaf" attached to the
supporting-plates 2 (page 1, lines 78 through 84) in the Jaynes
patent cannot be fairly said to be "proximate", i.e., very near
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007