Appeal No. 96-3968
Application No. 08/117,669
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, to the October 4,
1994 declaration of Robert S. Ring and to the respective
positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we make the determinations which
follow.
We will not sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Nakamura. We
agree with the appellant's argument (brief, p. 6) that the gap
between Nakamura's feed-in rollers 26a and 26b does not satisfy
the "fixed gap" limitation of claim 1. We disagree with the
examiner's determination (answer, p. 4) that Nakamura discloses a
fixed gap between Nakamura's feed-in rollers 26a and 26b.
Nakamura specifically teaches that the gap between the feed-in
rollers 26a and 26b is adjusted by a gap adjusting means. As 3
discussed in column 10, line 3, to column 11, line 20 and as
shown in Figures 8 and 9 of Nakamura, the gap between the feed-in
rollers 26a and 26b changes as each continuous paper sheet is
3See column 7, line 30, to column 8, line 2, of Nakamura.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007