Ex parte MILLER - Page 7

          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            


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

Last modified: November 3, 2007