Ex parte MILLER - Page 9

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

          only after it is deflected from a path.  Appellant's argument is           
          not commensurate with the scope of the subject matter of claim 8.          
          Claim 8 recites, inter alia, that after deflecting a lower edge            
          of an envelope continuing to apply a first force and simul-                
          taneously applying a second force to urge an envelope rearward             
          towards an intake.  Thus, contrary to appellant's argument, the            
          second force is not required to be applied to the lower "edge",            
          as claimed.  Based upon the configuration of components in Figure          
          6, in particular, we are of the view that those skilled in this            
          art would understand that the lower edge of an envelope emanating          
          from the nip between rollers 24, 25 of Markoe would engage and be          
          deflected by the directing plate and thereafter a second, smaller          
          force effected by the roller 48 cooperating with the directing             

          plate 49 urges the envelope rearward towards the intake between            
          the rollers 25, 26.  Accordingly, the method of appellant's claim          
          8 is determined to be anticipated by the Markoe disclosure.                

                            Claims 1 through 4, 6, and 7                             
               As to the subject matter of independent claim 1, like                 
          appellant, we do not discern a stop means in the teaching of               


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

Last modified: November 3, 2007