Appeal No. 97-1890
Application 08/338,707
reference may not properly be combined with features
disclosed in another reference. A general argument
that all the limitations are not described in a
single reference does not satisfy the requirements
of this paragraph.
Thus, 37 CFR § 1.192 provides that this board is not under any
greater burden than the court which is not under any burden to
raise and/or consider such issues.
We have addressed all of these arguments and found that
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner has erred in
making the rejection. Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner
rejection of claims 1 through 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
On page 4 of the brief, Appellants further argue that
neither Francisco nor Kapp, alone or in combination, discloses
or suggests control means for asynchronously controlling the
transport of an envelope wherein the timing of the envelope
transport is related to the collation transport only by way of
determined events occurring in the transport of each collation
and envelope, as set forth in claim 4. Appellants have not
provided any arguments as to why Francisco fails to teach this
limitation. However, we note that the Examiner relies on
Kapp's teaching this actuating of the motors along the
transport path as evidence that this limitation is known in
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007