Appeal No. 2000-0909
Application No. 08/784,752
paragraph [7], above, we do not agree with the examiner that
the claims lack essential structural cooperative relationships
between the elements listed in the rejection.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102
The rejection of claim 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is
sustained, but not the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9
through 11, 15 through 19, 27 through 29, 31, 32 and 34.
To support a rejection of a claim under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b), it must be shown that each element of the claim is
found, either expressly described or under principles of
inherency, in a single prior art reference. See Kalman v.
Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789
(Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
Independent claim 1 is drawn to a machine for
transferring discrete areas of material from a carrier onto a
substrate and requires, inter alia, “means . . . for
simultaneously adjusting by equal and opposite amounts path
lengths followed by the carrier on the input and output sides
of the transfer station . . . .”
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007