Appeal No. 2004-0065 Page 6
Application No. 09/642,585
at the downstream end of accumulator conveyor (29), for applying adhesive to the
packages/blanks therein.
With respect to appellants’ first contention, we fail to find any explanation of
exactly why appellants believe it would not be possible to apply accurately adhesive to
blanks within an accumulator conveyor like that seen at (29) of Focke. Looking at the
top view of the conveying apparatus as seen in Figure 1 of Focke, it appears eminently
reasonable that an adhesive applying means located at the downstream end of the
accumulator conveyor (29) would accurately apply adhesive to the top surface of each
of the packs (10) exiting the accumulator conveyor and thereby facilitate application of a
label, like that mentioned at column 1, lines 21-27 of Focke, to the top surface of each
package/blank at a later processing station associated with the higher speed removal
conveyor (15).
In light of the foregoing, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1
through 11, 24 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Focke in
view of Jeffrey. While appellants’ brief at page 5 indicates that the claims on appeal “do
not stand or fall together” and urges that we should consider each claim individually and
separately, we observe that appellants have not presented separate arguments in their
brief or reply brief for the individual claims on appeal. Thus, finding no arguments as to
why the individual claims are considered to be separately patentable, we conclude that
they will fall with the independent claims from which they depend.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007