Appeal No. 96-0327
Application 07/961,795
the claimed invention and recognize only a feature of Chang
which does not involve the appellants’ claimed invention.
Moreover, it should be noted that the appellants’ independent
claim 24 states nothing with regard to slowing down the
processing if a sheet is likely to jam. With respect to
claims 24 and 25, the appellants’ argument is not commensurate
in scope with what has been claimed.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of
claims 1, 10-14, 20, 21 and 23-25 as being anticipated by
Chang.
Conclusion
The rejection of claims 1, 10-14, 20, 21, and 23-25 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Chang is affirmed.
The rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Chang is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007