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 7Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007