Appeal No. 97-2547
Application 07/949,042
while the appellants are correct in pointing out that this
“work station” is in the front of DeHart’s machine (see page 2
in the request), it nonetheless meets the requirement in claim
21 that the work station be “at one side of the machine” since
the front of DeHart’s machine forms one of its four sides.
Finally, while the appellants would appear to be correct in
asserting that documents sliding off DeHart’s chute 38 will
drop below the chute (see page 3 in the request), they have
not demonstrated or cogently explained why such documents will
not move horizontally, at least to a small extent, before
doing so. We therefore remain of the view that DeHart, under
principles of inherency, meets the rather broad limitation in
claim 21 requiring the envelope contents to be conveyed along
a horizontally extending path to the work station.
To summarize, we have reconsidered our earlier decision
on appeal to the extent indicated above, but decline to make
any changes therein.
Turning now to the appellants’ current appeal, we shall
not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007