Appeal No. 2000-0581
Application No. 08/429,155
determined, the examiner should review the Poland, Harless3
and Campbell patents, as well as other prior art references4
of which the examiner may be aware, to determine whether the
claims are anticipated by or unpatentable over these
references.
In particular, the examiner should reconsider the Poland
patent to see whether any or all of the claims are anticipated
or rendered unpatentable thereby. Poland discloses a document
stacking device including a drum-like stacker comprised of a
pair of discs 60, as discussed above. The portions of the
discs located radially outwardly of the arcuate slots 66a, 66b
appear to us to be "fan blades" which define pockets (the
slots) for receiving signatures (documents 40). Appellant
(brief, page 5) contends that the deflectors 71 and leaf
springs 72 are attached to the discs via rivets which must be
destroyed in order to remove the deflectors. The examiner
should assess, on the record, even assuming arguendo that
appellant is correct with regard to the rivets, whether the
U.S. Pat. No. 2,014,933, issued to Harless et al. on September 17,3
1935, cited by the examiner in Paper No. 3.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,357,008, issued Nov. 2, 1982, cited by appellant in4
Paper No. 2.
16
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007