Appeal No. 96-3968
Application No. 08/117,669
VI, Parts B and D of the brief (pp. 6-8 and 11) are all addressed
to limitations not present in claims 15 through 17 and 21.
Accordingly, the appellant has not specified any error in the
rejection of claims 15 through 17 and 21.
For the above reasons, we will sustain the examiner's
rejection of claims 15 through 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Nakamura and the examiner's rejection of claim
21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura in
view of Hageman.
We will not sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura in view
of Jones. We agree with the appellant's argument (brief, p. 11)
that Jones does not teach or suggest driving the transport belts
at a third speed slightly higher than the first speed of the slow
speed rolls, but not as great as the second speed of the high
speed rolls as recited in claim 20. While Jones does disclose a
double conveyor belt unit 46-55 for conveying bags from nip rolls
40, 41 to folder rolls 56-58, Jones does not teach or suggest the
step of driving transport belts at a third speed as recited in
claim 20. Since the limitations of claim 20 is not taught or
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007