Appeal No. 2005-0722
Application No. 09/749,361
direction T) while simultaneously feeding the article in a second
direction (alignment direction A) stems from an unreasonable
interpretation of the reference text reproduced above.
Considered in context, the word “preferably” refers not to the
alternating passage of cam wheels 30 and 50 through plate 22 as
asserted by the examiner, but rather to the manner in which such
alternating passage is accomplished. In a similar vein, the
examiner’s conjecture as to the import of the statement in the
reference that the wheels of the feed and aligning devices act
alternatingly “at least” upon the sheet to be picked from the
stack has no factual basis. The Mylaeus reference, reasonably
read, discloses that drive 60 functions via cam wheels 30, 40 and
50 to drive sheet 11 in orthogonal transport and alignment
directions only in an alternating manner.
Hence, the finding by the examiner that Mylaeus meets the
drive apparatus limitations in claim 13 is unfounded and actually
belied by the fair teachings of the reference. Therefore, we
shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of
claim 13 as being anticipated by Mylaeus.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007