Appeal No. 2004-0065 Page 2
Application No. 09/642,585
1 of the specification, the apparatus and method involves a first conveyor (e.g., 26 of
Fig. 1) arranged to convey packaging blanks at a first conveying velocity through an
application region in which an adhesive or at least one adhering element is applied to
each blank by an applying means (40) and a second conveyor (50) arranged to receive
said blanks from the first conveyor and convey said blanks at a second velocity which is
greater than said first velocity. Independent claims 1 and 11 are representative of the
subject matter on appeal, and a copy of those claims may be found in the Appendix to
appellants’ brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
claims on appeal are:
Focke et al. (Focke) 5,762,175 Jun. 9, 1998
Jeffrey et al. (Jeffrey) 5,853,360 Dec. 29, 1998
Claims 1 through 11, 24 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Jeffrey in view of Focke. This rejection is set forth on pages 4-
6 of the examiner’s answer.
Claims 1 through 11, 24 and 25 also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Focke in view of Jeffrey. This rejection is set forth on pages
6-7 of the examiner’s answer.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by appellants and the
examiner regarding the above-noted rejections, we refer to the examiner's answer
(Paper No. 23, mailed February 19, 2003) and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 22, filed
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007