Appeal No. 2000-2032 Page 7
Application No. 09/017,187
The pertinent teachings of the applied prior art are set
forth on pages 4, 5 and 8 of the brief and pages 3-4 of the
answer. However, we find no support in Reponty for the
examiner's finding (answer, p. 3) that Reponty's sensors are
located downstream of a cutting device since we fail to find
any disclosure within Reponty of a cutting device.
The appellants argue that the applied prior art does not
suggest the claimed subject matter. We agree.
Claims 1, 4, 5 and 7 to 11 require a folder to have one
sensor set disposed downstream of a cutting cylinder to
determine skew in a signature and a second sensor set disposed
upstream of a quarter fold region to determine skew in a
signature. However, it is our view that these limitations are
not suggested by the applied prior art. In that regard, while
Kalisiak does teach a sensor set to determine skew in a
signature, Kalisiak does not teach or suggest using two sensor
sets to determine skew in a signature with one sensor set
disposed downstream of a cutting cylinder and the second
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007