Appeal No. 2006–0377 Παγε 4
Application No. 10/066,085
which the examiner finds is a conveying device for transporting the printed products to a
further processing step.
We do not find this argument persuasive because we agree with the examiner
that:
. . . the upper surface of the chain 2 is above the upper surface of the
chain 3 for at least a portion of their overlapping area. Specifically, the
upper surface of the chain 2 is slightly above the surface of the chain 3 at
least the line II-II as seen in Fig. 1 of Mueller. This meets the limitation of
the claim 1 that the saddle shaped support formed by the chain 2 be
above the conveying device formed by the chain 2 [sic:3] because the
language of the claims does not require the entire saddle shaped support
to be above the conveying device 3, but only requires a portion of the
saddle shaped support to be above the conveying device [answer at
pages 5 to 6].
The appellant also argues that Müller does not describe a saddle-shaped support
that comprises a circulating traction mechanism or driving members connected to the
circulating traction mechanism.
We do not find these arguments persuasive because we agree with the examiner
that:
. . . the members 5 clearly form driving members connected to the
circulating traction mechanism 2 that act on the printed products to convey
them in a direction parallel to a conveying direction of the conveying
device 3 as required by the present invention [answer at page 6] .
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain this rejection as it is directed to claim 1.
We will also sustain this rejection as it is directed to claim 4 because the appellant has
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007