Appeal No. 2000-1639
Application No. 08/923,449
Looking first at the rejection based on Jeschke in view of
Craemer and Marschke (rejection (a)), the examiner considers
(answer, page 1) that Jeschke discloses a device for cutting a
web into folded signatures which are later shingled, the device
comprising a web (1), a folder (2) for folding the web, a cutter
(11, 12) for converting the web into signatures, a tape system
for receiving the signatures, and a first conveyor (28) for
receiving signatures from the tape system, with the first
conveyor running at a speed slower than the tape system. The
examiner acknowledges (answer, pages 1-3) that Marschke does not
disclose (i) a first knock-down wheel for the first conveyor,
(ii) a second conveyor downstream of the first conveyor running
at a speed slower than the first conveyor, (iii) a second knock-
down wheel for the second conveyor, and (iv) the tape system
running at a speed greater than the web speed.
The examiner turns to Craemer for a teaching of deficiencies
(i), (ii) and (iii). According to the examiner:
Craemer discloses using two conveyor belts . . .
to shingle . . . sheets for the purpose of maintaining
the exit speed of the shingler constant while allowing
the processing speed of an upstream cutter and folder
to vary. As shown in Figure 2 of Craemer et al., the
speed of the second conveyor belt (28) is constant
while the speed of the first conveyor belt varies to
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007