Appeal No. 1999-0956
Application No. 08/584,084
is to provide a card package production system “for multiple
types of carriers” (emphasis added, specification, page 2) and
that, consistent with appealed claim 28, original claim 28 also
did not require means for folding the carrier form about a second
fold line. These disclosures undercut the examiner’s position
and indicate to us that appellants from the outset did not
consider folding about the second fold line to be critical. For
these reasons, the examiner’s first reason for rejecting the
claims is not persuasive.
The examiner’s second reason for rejecting the claims
applies to claims 28-38. The examiner considers that
the specification fails to disclose how a leading end
section can move in a second direction transverse to a
first direction while “the leading end, middle and
lagging end sections” move in the same first direction.
Clearly[,] the leading end section merely pivots about
the first fold line . . . . In order for the leading
end section to move in a direction transverse to the
direction that the middle and lagging end sections move
in, as defined by the claim[s], the leading end section
would clearly have to be disconnected from the middle
and lagging end sections. [Answer, pages 3-4.]
During prosecution, independent claim 28 was amended to
recite that the “means for guiding the leading end section” moves
the leading end section in a second direction “transverse to” the
first direction of movement of the leading end, middle and
lagging end sections. It appears from the examiner’s second
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007