Appeal No. 97-2547
Application 07/949,042
the Examiner lacks standing to make such comments (see page 1
in the reply brief filed in connection with the current
appeal, Paper No. 38). This matter, however, is not directly
connected with the merits of issues involving a rejection of
claims and therefore is reviewable by petition to the
Commissioner rather than by appeal to this Board. See In re
Hengehold, 440 F.2d 1395, 1403-1404, 169 USPQ 473, 479 (CCPA
1971). Accordingly we shall not decide or further discuss the
appellants’ motion to strike.
As for the merits of the appellants’ request for
reconsideration, we stated in our earlier decision that:
DeHart discloses a method of extracting contents
from envelopes with a table top extracting machine.
The method includes the steps of stacking the
envelopes at an input station 24, feeding the
envelopes one at a time from the input station to a
cutting station 30, severing the envelopes along
edge portions thereof at the cutting station,
transporting the envelopes from the cutting station
to a separating station 34, separating the contents
from the envelopes at the separating station, and
conveying the separated contents from one envelope
at a time down a chute 38.
The appellants argue that the method recited in
claim 21 is not anticipated by DeHart because “[i]n
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007