Appeal No. 2000-0116
Application No. 08/950,539
Lee substantially shows the claimed subject matter
as discussed in paragraph 2 of the last office
action. Lee does not show moving the sheets with a
scuffer wheel and Lee does not show advancing the
sheets after creating a pocket as claimed.
Underwood teaches the basic concept of feeding
sheets with a scuffer wheel and Aronsen shows the
concept of creating a pocket and then subsequently
advancing sheets into the pocket. It would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the invention to provide Lee with
scuffer advancing means and pocket forming means as
taught by Underwood and Aronsen respectively to
provide an efficient and accurate process.
After fully considering the record in light of the
arguments presented in the appellant’s brief and the
examiner’s answer, we conclude that rejection (1) should not
be sustained. While it seems evident that, as a general
proposition and as disclosed by Underwood, it is well known to
use a scuffer to advance media sheets, and would have been
obvious to use a scuffer in the Lee apparatus to advance the
pages from machine 10 and the packaging (enclosure) sheets 36,
we do not consider that it would further have been obvious to
modify the Lee apparatus in view of Aronsen in the manner
proposed by the examiner.
Aronsen discloses an arrangement for packaging a product
such as towelettes in a dispenser pouch. In brief, the pouch
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007