Appeal No. 2004-1354
Application 09/855,929
on appeal, it follows that the examiner’s rejection of those
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) will not be sustained.1
Regarding the examiner’s rejection of claims 6, 15 through
18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Dickhoff in view of Kovac, we have reviewed the patent to Kovac,
but find nothing therein which overcomes or provides for the
deficiencies we have identified above with regard to the folder
unit of Dickhoff. Accordingly, the examiner’s rejection of
dependent claims 6, 15 through 18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
will likewise not be sustained.
In summary, we note that the examiner’s rejection of
claims 1 through 5, 7, 8, 11 through 14, 16, 17, 19, 21 and 22
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Dickhoff, and
that of claims 6, 15 through 18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
1 We note in passing that claims 16, 17 and 19 subject to
the examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on
Dickhoff alone depend, either directly or indirectly, from claim
15, which the examiner rejects under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
Dickhoff modified in view of Kovac. Thus, it would appear that
dependent claims 16, 17 and 19 should more properly have been
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Dickhoff and Kovac.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007