Appeal No. 2000-1639
Application No. 08/923,449
accommodate variations in the speed of upstream processing
devices (note cutters 18 whose speed is also shown in Figure
2). The knock-down wheels are provide above the conveyor
belts for the purpose of preventing a sheet leaving the tape
system from becoming airborne at high speeds . . . and
allowing for consistent shingling. [Answer, page 2.]
The examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellant’s invention to
provide Marschke with items (i), (ii), and (iii) in view of
Craemer.
The examiner turns to Marschke for a teaching of deficiency
(iv). In the examiner’s view, Marschke discloses
a cutting and shingling device in which webs
are cut, fed to [a] tape system running at
a faster speed than the web speed, and finally
shingled on a downstream conveyor. The tape
system speeds up the cut sheets in order to
separate the sheets from their abutting
relationship so that they are suitably spaced
apart for shingling . . . . [Answer, page 3.]
Based on this teaching, the examiner concludes that it also would
have been obvious to modify Jeschke by speeding up the tape
system as disclosed by Marschke in order to separate the sheets
from their abutting relationship so that they are suitably spaced
apart for shingling.
Because we do not agree with the examiner that it would have
been obvious to modify Jeschke by providing a second conveyor
belt downstream of Jeschke’s conveyor (28) traveling at a speed
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007