Appeal No. 97-2720 Page 5
Application No. 08/354,387
The anticipation issue
We sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1, 4, 6 and
9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by DuBois.
To support a rejection of a claim under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b), it must be shown that each element of the claim is
found, either expressly described or under principles of
inherency, in a single prior art reference. See Kalman v.
Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789
(Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
Claim 1
Claim 1 is drawn to a sheet feeding apparatus comprising,
inter alia, a fixed support for supporting a stack of sheets;
a movable feedhead contacting the stack of sheets; and a
variable length sheetpath between the feedhead and a sheet
delivery area.
DuBois discloses a sheet material feeder. As shown in
Figures 1, 5 and 6, the sheet material feeder includes a feed
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007