Appeal No. 2002-1788 Page 14
Application No. 09/217,667
material with respect to the feed path when the feed direction of the strip material is
reversed.
The argument presented by the appellant convinces us that the subject matter of
claim 3 is novel over the teachings of Williams. In that regard, while Williams does
teach (column 10, lines 5-14) that in the better method for calibrating the sensors a
single sheet of paper is moved back and forth in the nips many times and that the
return move can be either deterministic or random, we fail to found any teaching in
Williams that sensor 134 generates a second sensor signal which is received by
controller 29 to automatically align the sheet of paper with respect to the feed path
when the feed direction of the sheet of paper is reversed.
Since all the limitations of claim 3 are not taught by Williams for the reasons set
forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is
reversed.
Claims 4 and 5
Claims 4 and 5, which depend from claim 3, fall with claim 3. Thus, it follows
that the decision of the examiner to reject claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is
also reversed.
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007