Appeal No. 97-1890
Application 08/338,707
As pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first
determine the scope of the claim. "[T]he name of the game is
the claim.” In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d
1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Turning to Appellants' claim 1,
we note that the claim recites "[a] method for controlling an
insertion apparatus having a plurality of operations arranged
for transporting an envelope and for transporting and
inserting a collation into the envelope ... comprising the
steps of providing respective event signals in accordance with
selected events associated with the operations." We find that
Appellants' claim 1 does not preclude the asynchronous control
between stations as disclosed by Francisco.
On page 3 of the brief, Appellants argue that Kapp does
not disclose a motor profile. In particular, Appellants
submit that a motor control which can be turned on and off in
a sequence of up to eight steps and has a reverse direction is
not a motor profile. Appellants simply state that the control
in Kapp is not what is claimed in the instant application, but
does not provide any explanation as to why Appellants' motor
profile as claimed is distinguished from the Kapp's motor
multiple modes control for a motor.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007