Appeal No. 1997-2839
Application No. 08/448,778
Appellant responds that "Nelson is exemplary only of the
prior art over which the invention is an improvement . . .
there is nothing about Nelson that would cause one of ordinary
skill in the art to revise Marazzi et al, and the teachings
thereof are mutually exclusive . . . [a]lso Nelson
specifically teaches against the feed rate provided according
to the invention" (brief, page 13).
Nelson teaches an apparatus for bonding a foil to
xerographic images (col. 2, lines 39-50) and acknowledges a
"dwell time" limiting the processing to from 25 to 500 inches
per minute (col. 5, lines 26-41). Appellant's above mentioned
claimed apparatus is for continuous printing, feeding, heating
and bonding on surfaces traveling at 100 ft./min. or greater
as
is specifically provided in claim 16 on appeal. We simply do
not find any suggestion in any of these three references, and
certainly not in the combination, of a printing and bonding
apparatus operating at the high speed as claimed in
appellant's claim 16.
For the above reasons, we cannot sustain the examiner's
rejection of claim 16. Likewise, the examiner's rejection of
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007