Ex parte CHROSNY et al. - Page 3




          Appeal No. 96-0327                                                          
          Application 07/961,795                                                      

               24.  A sheet processing system, comprising:                            
               a) sheet handling apparatus, said apparatus including a                
          first input for input of a control signal for determining the               
          rate at which said apparatus processes sheets;                              
               b) a sheet feeder for input of sheets to said apparatus,               
          said feeder producing a signal during input of a sheet                      
          characteristic of said sheet;                                               
               c) means responsive to said characteristic signal and                  
          connected to said first input for generating said control                   
          signal in accordance with said characteristic signal.                       

                                       Opinion                                        
               We affirm the rejection of claims 1, 10-14, 20, 21 and                 
          23-25.  We reverse the rejection of claim 22.                               
               Our opinion is based solely on the arguments made by the               
          appellants in the appeal brief.  Arguments which could have                 
          been raised but which are not before us, are not at issue and               
          are considered waived.                                                      
               The rejection of claim 22 as being anticipated by Chang                
          is summarily reversed.  Claim 22 depends from claim 18 which                
          has been indicated as containing allowable subject matter but               
          dependent from a rejected claim.  Thus, no proper basis exists              
          for rejecting claim 22.  Rather, on this record, it should be               
          objected to, like claim 18, as containing allowable subject                 
          matter but dependent from a rejected claim, i.e., claim 1.                  
                                          3                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007