Ex parte MILLER - Page 10




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


          Markoe (Figure 6) for engaging a "lower edge" of an envelope and           
          urging an upper edge towards an intake.  At best, it appears to            
          us that the roller 48 would help make an envelope descend between          
          rollers 25 and 26 by engaging a side of an envelope after the              
          envelope is deflected by the directing plate 49.  Thus, we cannot          
          sustain the rejection of claims 1 through 4, 6, and 7 under                
          35 U.S.C.  102(b) based upon the teaching of Markoe.                      
          In summary, this panel of the board has:                                   
               affirmed the rejection of claims 1 through 5 and 8 under              
          35 U.S.C.  102(b) as being anticipated by Jaynes, but reversed            
          the rejection of claim 6 on the same ground; and                           
               reversed the rejection of claims 1 through 4, 6, and 7 under          
          35 U.S.C.  102(b) as being anticipated by Markoe, but affirmed            
          the rejection of claim 8 on the same ground.                               





               The decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.                     
               No time period for taking any subsequent action in                    
          connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR                   
           1.136(a).                                                                
                                  AFFIRMED-IN-PART                                   

                                         10                                          





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007