Appeal No. 2002-0072 Page 4
Application No. 08/956,912
every element of the claimed invention. See, for example, In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475,
1480-1481, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1675 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Kobler is directed to an apparatus for folding signatures, therein referred to as
substrates. As shown in Figure 3, first and second signatures are conveyed on a belt
17 toward a folding mechanism. Kobler explicitly teaches that “selected” (column 5, line
37) first signatures, for example, those with odd numbers, are deflected by a tongue 40
of a delay mechanism so that they travel a longer path, via belts 18 and 19, than the
even numbered second signatures, which remain on belt 17. Thus, contrary to the
appellant’s argument (Brief, pages 6 and 7; Reply Brief, pages 1 and 2), it is our view
that Kobler’s delay mechanism “selectively” processes individual signatures, as is
required by claim 1. The result of the selective processing of some signatures by the
delay mechanism is that a first signature is deposited on top of each second signature
at the downstream end of the delay mechanism, in edge alignment, thereby creating a
“signature grouping,” as also is required by claim 1. Then, as shown in Figure 1, a
folding blade 14 cooperating with a folding mechanism 13 longitudinally folds the
signatures in each signature grouping simultaneously. While the “selective processing”
and the “signature grouping” in the Kobler system differ from those disclosed in the
appellant’s specification, anticipation does not require that the reference teach the
appellant’s invention, but only that the claim on appeal "read on" something disclosed in
the reference, i.e., all limitations of the claim are found in the reference. See Kalman v.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007