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