Appeal No. 2004-0065 Page 3
Application No. 09/642,585
December 30, 2002) and reply brief (Paper No. 25, filed April 21, 2003) for a full
exposition thereof.
OPINION
Having carefully reviewed the obviousness issues raised in this appeal in light of
the record before us, we have made the determinations which follow.
Looking first to the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 11, 24 and 25 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jeffrey in view of Focke, the examiner
contends (answer, pages 4-5) that
Jeffrey discloses an apparatus and method for use in
processing packaging blanks; the apparatus including an
applying means; a first conveyor (via conveyor 8 in station 2)
arranged to convey packaging blanks (5) at a first conveying
velocity and at a first even pitch through an application
region in which an adhesive (via glue manifolds 13) or at
least on adhering element is applied to each blank by the
applying means, see for example (Figs. 1-3); and a second
conveyor (via conveyor 8 in station 3). Jeffrey does not
disclose a second conveyor arranged to receive the blanks
from the first conveyor and convey them at a second velocity
and at a second even pitch which is greater than the first
velocity. However, Focke discloses a similar apparatus has
a first conveyor (via 29) and a second conveyor (via 20)
arranged to receive the blanks from the first conveyor (Figs.
1 and 2) and convey them at a second velocity and at a
second even pitch (via 50 and 57) which is different than the
first pitch (via 40 and 33) which is greater than the first
velocity (column 4, lines 10-22) for ensuring that the blanks
and/or packs have precisely defined spacing between them
in the region of a removal conveyor (column 1, lines 29 and
30).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007