Appeal No. 2000-1639
Application No. 08/923,449
than the first conveyor speed thereby forming the signatures into
a second stream of shingled signatures traveling at the second
conveyor speed.
A copy of the appealed claims is found in the appendix to
appellant’s brief.
The references relied upon by the examiner in the final
rejection are:
Marschke 4,200,276 Apr. 29, 1980
Craemer et al. (Craemer) 4,240,856 Dec. 23, 1980
Jeschke et al. (Jeschke) 4,344,610 Aug. 17, 1982
Reponty 5,102,111 Apr. 7, 1992
The claims stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
follows:3
3While the examiner has not expressly repeated all of the
rejections applicable to the claims before us on appeal in the
examiner’s answer (Paper No. 21), it is clear from a review of
the final rejection, appellant’s brief (Paper No. 20) and the
totality of the examiner’s answer that the rejections as stated
below are those that are before us for consideration on appeal.
We are at a loss to understand why all of the applicable prior
art references and rejections were not repeated in the examiner’s
answer. Normally, rejections of claims which are not repeated in
the answer are considered to have been withdrawn by the examiner.
See, for example, Ex parte Emm, 118 USPQ 180, 181 (Bd. App.
1957). In the present case, we note that appellant’s grouping of
the claims as set forth on page 4 of the brief in no way relieves
the examiner of the obligation to expressly state in the answer
exactly what references and rejections are applicable to the
appealed claims.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007