Appeal No. 1998-2927 Page 6
Application No. 07/584,667
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
In the brief (page 3), the appellants stated that
claims 1-3 stand and fall together and that claim 4 stands and
falls separately from claims 1-3. In accordance with 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7), we have selected claim 1 as the representative
claim from the appellants' grouping of claims 1-3.
Claim 1
We sustain the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 1 reads as follows:
Moistening system comprising: a moistening member
and a water reservoir, said moistening member being
mounted on said reservoir and having a projecting part
for moistening envelope flaps of postal articles as said
articles move along a path and said flaps are applied
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007