Appeal No. 96-3968
Application No. 08/117,669
fed. For example, when a thick continuous paper sheet is fed,
the feed-in rollers 26a and 26b and incremented in eight pulses
to close the gap therebetween followed by eight pulses to widen
the gap. Thus, the feed-in rollers 26a and 26b are not mounted
to have a "fixed gap" therebetween. Since all the limitations of
claim 1 are not met by Nakamura, we will not sustain the
examiner's rejection thereof under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
We will not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 2
through 8, 10 through 14, 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Nakamura, alone or in combination with
Jones and/or Hageman. Similar to claim 1, these claims all
require the guide elements/slow speed rolls to have a "fixed gap"
therebetween. In rejecting these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103,
the examiner relied upon Nakamura as teaching this "fixed gap"
limitation. However, as discussed above, we do not agree with
the examiner on this matter. Since the "fixed gap" limitation is
not taught or suggested by the prior art applied by the examiner,
we will not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 2 through
8, 10 through 14, 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Nakamura, alone or in combination with Jones
and/or Hageman.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007