Appeal No. 2006-0260 Παγε 4
Application No. 10/139,678
oriented single file arrangement. Independent claims 17 and 27 each require that the
second conveyor transport mail in a second direction different from the first direction.
The second conveyor 14 in Denker transports mail in the same direction as the
first conveyor 12. Therefore, we disagree with the examiner that Denker describes the
invention as claimed except that Denker does not describe transporting mail.
Our review of the disclosure of Terrell reveals that although Terrell may be seen
to describe a second conveyor (16 or 18) that conveys items in a direction different from
a first conveyer (14 or 16), said items are not conveyed in a uniformly oriented manner
as required by claims 1, 17 and 27 nor does the second conveyor change the position
of the items as required by claims 1 and 27. Rather, the second conveyor in the system
of Terrell does not convey the items in a uniformly oriented manner and utilizes an
eliminator 40 to discharge the non uniform articles (col. 3, lines 52 to 62).
As such, the references do not disclose alone or in combination a second
conveyor which transport items in a direction different or orthogonal to the direction of
the first conveyor and which conveys or changes the positioning of the items so that
they are conveyed in a uniformly oriented, single file arrangement as required by
independent claims 1, 17 and 27. Therefore, we will not sustain this rejection.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007