Appeal No. 2000-1202 Page 2
Application No. 08/982616
BACKGROUND
The appellants’ invention relates to an apparatus for folding box blanks and
depositing panels into the box. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a
reading of exemplary claim 1, which appears in the appendix to the appellant's Brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Doman 4,778,554 Oct. 18, 1991
Fluent et al. (Fluent) 5,024,045 Jun. 18, 1991
Claims 1, 2 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Fluent.
Claims 3 and 5-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Fluent in view of Doman.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer (Paper
No. 10) and the first office action (Paper No. 3) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to the Brief (Paper No. 9) for the appellants’ arguments
thereagainst.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007