Appeal No. 1998-2179 Page 3
Application No. 08/433,231
2. Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Newsome
in view of Reist, as applied to claims 12, 19 and 20 above, and further in view of Schall.
3. Claims 1-11, 14-18 and 21-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Newsome in view of Reist, Schall and Shimanis.
Reference is made to the brief (Paper No. 17) and the answer (Paper No. 18) for the
respective positions of the appellant and the examiner with regard to the merits of these
rejections.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the respective
positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
make the determinations which follow.
Newsome discloses an apparatus which takes stacks of pre-formed, stored printed
signatures and forms them into a uniform shingle, running at extremely high velocity, for
transport into a processing device (abstract) and teaches that running shingles have been formed
as a convenient way of transporting signatures from one location to another and into further
processing devices "such as quarter-folders (to make a double-folded signature), to labeling
machines, to stackers, etc." (column 1, lines 29-33). The Newsome apparatus comprises a first
conveyor (belts B1, B2, B3) onto which stacks 10 of signatures are loaded by a human
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007