Appeal No. 96-3968
Application No. 08/117,669
We will sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 15
through 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Nakamura. We will also sustain the examiner's rejection of claim
21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura in
view of Hageman. These claims only require that the slow speed
rolls have a gap therebetween, not a "fixed gap" as recited in
the claims previously considered. With regard to these claims,
we agree with the examiner's determination (answer, p. 5) that
it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the
art to adapt Nakamura's burster to (1) process business forms of
a paper weight of 32 lbs. or less, or more specifically, 16-32
lbs., and (2) utilize a transport speed of about 600 fpm since
discovering an optimum range or value involves only routine skill
in the art.
Implicit in these rejections is the examiner’s view that the
above noted modification of Nakamura would have resulted in a
method which corresponds to the method recited in claims 15
through 17 and 21 in all respects.
The appellant has not presented any argument with respect to
claims 15 through 17 and 21. The arguments presented in section
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007