Appeal No. 96-0425 Page 3
Application No. 08/108,986
BACKGROUND
The appellants' invention relates to an apparatus for
transporting printing works products. An understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1,
which is reproduced in the opinion section below.
The prior art reference of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims is:
Hognestad et al. (Hognestad) 5,018,940 May 28,
1991
Claims 1 through 6 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Hognestad.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejection, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 14, mailed June 26, 1995) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejection, and to the appellants'
brief (Paper No. 13, filed April 17, 1995) for the appellants'
arguments thereagainst.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007