Appeal No. 2002-1788 Page 17
Application No. 09/217,667
15-51) that nips 114 and 116 impose appropriate velocity profiles V1 and V2 to the
paper, thus steering the paper so that the paper is registered at datum 3 (D3) with
proper position and orientation (zero skew). Thus, Williams does aligns the paper while
the paper is being advanced in the X-axis direction after the paper has been placed
without being precisely aligned.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 40
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is affirmed.
Claims 41 to 43
The appellants have grouped claims 40 to 43 as standing or falling together.5
Thereby, in accordance with 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7), claims 41 to 43 fall with claim 40.
Thus, it follows that the decision of the examiner to reject claims 41 to 43 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is also affirmed.
Claim 44
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 7-8) that claim 44 is not anticipated since
Williams does not disclose (1) a friction drive apparatus that corrects misalignment of
sheet material based on input from only one detection sensor; and (2) aligning the
5 See page 3 of the appellants' brief.
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007