Appeal No. 1998-1912
Application No. 08/780,744
deforming step. Appellants’ argument in the reply brief to
the effect that elements 48, 50 of Knudsen do not function to
fold Knudsen’s tabs 16 is noted. This argument fails at the
outset because claims 6 and 7 do not require that the
mouthpiece perform any deforming function.
The anticipation rejection of claim 18 will be sustained
because the transfer rod 76 of Knudsen includes vacuum holding
means for retaining the inserts during transfer (column 6,
lines 7-17).
We reach an opposite conclusion with respect to the
anticipation rejection of claims 2, 13, 14, 16, 19 and 20.
Claim 2 calls for the stations to be “at different levels”
(i.e., at different elevations). Since the locations of
Knudsen that correspond to the first and second stations are
at the same level (elevation), Knudsen does not meet this
claim limitation and the anticipation rejection thereof fails.
For similar reasons , the anticipation rejection of claims 16,3
3Claim 16 depends from claim 15, which requires that the
deforming means is located “at a level above” the second
station. Claim 19 sets forth that the transferring means
moves between a “lower position” and a “higher position”
during transfer operations. Claim 20 sets forth that the
second station is disposed “at a level below” the first
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007