Appeal No. 97-2720 Page 12
Application No. 08/354,387
provided by Wantanabe's precise passage of sheets over a
variable length sheetpath (i.e., movable guide 65) and would
have been motivated by that advantage to modify DuBois in the
manner set forth above.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is affirmed.
Claim 3
Dependent claim 3 adds to parent claim 2 the limitation
that the apparatus further comprises "a controller, in
communication with said feedhead, for actuating said feedhead
to advance a sheet from the stack of sheets to insure delivery
to the delivery area at a selected time."
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 6-7) that this
limitation is not taught or suggested by the applied prior
art.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007