Appeal No. 2000-2032 Page 4
Application No. 09/017,187
not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1, 4, 5 and 7
to 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Our reasoning for this
determination follows.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28
USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A prima facie case of
obviousness is established by presenting evidence that would
have led one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the
relevant teachings of the references to arrive at the claimed
invention. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d
1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013,
1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).
Claims 1, 7 and 12, the independent claims under appeal,
read as follows:
1. A folder for processing a stream of signatures
having a desired path and each signature having a lead
and a trail edge, the folder comprising:
a plurality of sensor sets, each of the plurality of
sensor sets for measuring a deviation of one of the lead
and trail edge of the signature from the desired path,
one of the plurality of sensor sets being disposed
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007