Appeal No. 97-2547
Application 07/949,042
delivering the extracted contents to a work station, the steps
of: separating the contents from the envelopes at a separating
station, conveying the separated contents along a path which
extends between the separating station and a work station
positioned to one side of the separating station, the greater
portion of the path length being horizontal, and presenting
the contents from one envelope at a time at the work station.
The prior art references relied upon by the examiner as
evidence of anticipation and obviousness are:
DeHart 4,016,708 Apr. 12,
1977
Russell et al. (Russell) 4,123,890 Nov.
7, 1978
In the earlier appeal, we rendered a decision (Paper No.
20) wherein, inter alia, we sustained the examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejection of claims 21 and 26 as being anticipated by
DeHart, refused to sustain the examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of claim 48 as being anticipated by DeHart, and
entered new 35 U.S.C. § 112, first and second paragraph,
rejections of claim 48 pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b). In
response, the appellants filed a request for reconsideration
pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.197(b) (Paper No. 21) relating to the
sustained rejection of claims 21 and 26, and an amendment
pursuant to 37 CFR 1.196(b)(1) (Paper No. 22) relating to the
new rejections of claim 48. We remanded the application to
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007