Appeal No. 96-3945
Application 08/095,016
The inverting feature of claim 24 on appeal is suggested
in the art by the return path R2 conveyor and roller
arrangement in Figure 1 of Kinoshita. We already noted the
top and bottom roller arrangement 52, 53 as well as the
discharge roller pair 57 provide the means for achieving the
relatively flat orientation recited in dependent claim 26 on
appeal. As a whole, appellants' arguments to reversing the
rejection of the dependent claims do not take into due
consideration all the teachings and suggestions, as well as
reasonable inferences the artisan would have properly derived
from the combination of teachings and suggestions within 35
U.S.C. § 103.
In conclusion, the evidence provided by the combined
teachings of the prior art relied upon clearly would have
indicated to the artisan the obviousness of the subject matter
of claims 1, 21 through 26, 34 and 35 within 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Therefore, the decision of the examiner is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007