Appeal No. 2003-0119
Application No. 09/569,477
specifically what an appellant has disclosed and is claiming but
only that the claims on appeal "read on" something disclosed in
the reference, i.e., all limitations of the claim are found in
the reference. See Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760,
772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S.
1026 (1984).
Independent method claim 1 requires, in particular, the
steps of first establishing a first phase synchronism through a
transfer unit with respect to a front printing-unit group, and
then establishing a second phase synchronism with respect to a
rear printing-unit group.
The examiner views the second exemplary embodiment of the
Volz patent (Fig. 2) as anticipatory of the claimed invention
(answer, pages 3 through 5), while appellants argue otherwise in
the main and reply briefs.
The difficulty we have with the anticipation rejection on
appeal is that, as to the disclosure that can be fairly
understood from the reference relative to the relied upon second
embodiment of the Volz patent, we do not discern that the second
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007