Appeal No. 97-2720 Page 18
Application No. 08/354,387
The examiner determined (answer, pp. 5-6) that
[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to provide the device of DuBois with a variable
speed drive to compensate for slippage in view of the
showing and teaching of Paxon.
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 7-8) that the subject
matter of claims 11 and 12 is not taught or suggested by the
applied prior art. We agree.
These claims recite that the variable speed drive is for
feeding sheets through the variable length sheetpath to the
sheet delivery area. Their parent claims recite that the
variable length sheetpath is between the feedhead and the
sheet delivery area. Thus, these claims require that the
variable speed drive is for feeding sheets from the feedhead
to the sheet delivery area. An artisan would understand that
DuBois differs from the claimed subject matter by having his
feed rollers 41, 42, 64, 65 rotate at a single speed when
feeding sheets instead of the claimed variable speed. The
teachings of Paxon, in our view, would not have provided any
suggestion to drive DuBois' feed rollers 41, 42, 64, 65 at
variable speeds. Furthermore, although the provision of a
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007