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