Appeal No. 2000-0582
Application 08/851,017
carriage can be performed significantly faster than driving
to a desired position by an adjusting motor” (page 4).
Hence, Wieland’s motor 37, 54 and its method of use do not
meet the “braking” limitations in claims 1 and 3. Since
Wieland does not disclose any other structure or steps
responding to these limitations, the examiner’s
determination that this reference discloses each and every
element of the invention set forth in claims 1 and 3, and in
claim 8 which depends from claim 3, is not well taken.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35
U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejection of claims 1, 3 and 8 as being anticipated
by Wieland.
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 2 and 7
Claims 2 and 7 depend from claims 1 and 3,
respectively, and pertain to a sensor or detection system
for identifying a desired sheet alignment position. In
short, Malachowski’s disclosure of a sheet alignment device
having such a sensor or detector system fails to overcome
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007