Appeal No. 2002-0072 Page 5
Application No. 08/956,912
Kimberly-Clark Corp, 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert.
denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
As explained above, it is our opinion that all of the subject matter recited in claim
1 “reads on” the forming device disclosed by Kobler. Therefore claim 1 is anticipated by
this reference and we will sustain the Section 102 rejection thereof.
Claim 2 adds to claim 1 the requirement that the signature grouping operated
upon by the folding blade “include a head-to-tail pairing of two adjacent signatures.”
Such an arrangement is not disclosed or taught by Kobler, and thus claim 2 is not
anticipated by Kobler and this rejection will not be sustained.
The separate patentability of dependent claim 7 was not argued in the Briefs,
and therefore this claim falls with claim 1, from which it depends. See 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7) and Section 1206 of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure.
As for claim 8, we agree with the examiner that the folding blade of Kobler has a
length “corresponding to” the length of the signature grouping, in that it must be of such
length as to cause the signature grouping to be folded longitudinally. The rejection of
claim 8 therefore is sustained.
The Rejection Under Section 103
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007