Appeal No. 2005-0722
Application No. 09/749,361
10 and transport it in the direction of a defined stop
which is formed here by base plate 20 [column 3, lines
4 through 35].
In rejecting claim 13 as being anticipated by Mylaeus, the
examiner views the supporting plate 22, cam wheels and associated
friction belts 30 and 33, cam wheels and associated friction
belts 50 and 55, and common drive 60 disclosed in the reference
to meet the limitations in the claim relating to the input
feeding deck, first feeding apparatus, second feeding apparatus
and drive apparatus, respectively (see page 3 in the answer). In
response to the appellant’s argument that the Mylaeus drive 60
does not meet the recitation in the claim requiring the drive
apparatus “to continuously drive the article in the first
direction . . . while simultaneously feeding the article in the
second direction,” the examiner submits that
[w]hile column 3, lines 4-12 [of Mylaeus] state that
the cam wheels 30 and 50 preferably pass through the
feeding deck 22 to contact the sheet alternatingly, it
should be noted that alternatives to this embodiment
are clearly contemplated and fairly suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art because this is only a
preference. The only alternative to this preference is
that the cam wheels 30 and 50 contact the sheet
simultaneously for at least part of their operating
cycle. Furthermore, lines 4-12 also state that the cam
wheels 30 and 50 act alternatingly at least upon the
sheet 11 to be picked from the stack. That statement
fairly suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art
that the sheets already picked from the stack may be
acted upon simultaneously because it means that the
preference for alternating action of the cam wheels 30
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007