Appeal No. 96-0356
Application 08/163,635
that roller 5 is idled when the drive mechanism moves between the
position depicted in Figures 2 and 3. Thus, this finding of the
examiner stands. Accordingly, in our view, Yoshinobu anticipates
the claimed subject matter of claim 1.
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Yoshinobu. We will also sustain this rejection as it is directed
to claims 3, 9 and 11 as the appellants indicate that all the
claims stand or fall together (Brief at page 7).
In Summary:
The examiner’s rejection of claims 4-5, 7, 8 and 11 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph is not sustained.
The examiner’s rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph is sustained.
The examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 3 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Sato is sustained. The examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 3, 9 and 11 under 35 U.S.C.§ 102(b) as
being anticipated by Yoshinobu is sustained.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007