Appeal No. 2002-1788 Page 18
Application No. 09/217,667
sheet material after placing the sheet material into the apparatus without regard to
precise alignment of the sheet material in the longitudinal direction.
The argument presented by the appellant does not convince us that the subject
matter of claim 44 is novel over the teachings of Williams for the reasons set forth
above with respect to claims 1 and 40. As stated above, Williams does align the paper
after placing the paper into the apparatus without regard to precise alignment of the
paper in the longitudinal direction.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 44
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is affirmed.
Claims 45 and 46
The appellants have grouped claims 44 to 46 as standing or falling together.6
Thereby, in accordance with 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7), claims 45 and 46 fall with claim 44.
Thus, it follows that the decision of the examiner to reject claims 45 and 46 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is also affirmed.
6 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