Appeal No. 2006–0377 Παγε 5
Application No. 10/066,085
not argued the separate patentability of this claim. See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567,
1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
We turn next to the examiner's rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Osako.
The examiner 's findings in regard to this rejection can be found on page 4 of the
answer.
The appellant argues that Osako does not describe a saddle-shaped support
disposed above a conveying device.
We agree with the examiner that Figure 8 of Osako depicts:
. . . the saddle shaped support formed by the first conveyor 111 that is
configured to be supplied by a sheet feeder with printed sheets (because it
could receive sheets from the feeder 114 or any other feeder in a certain
sequence astride and atop one another) is clearly above the conveying
device 117 in the fashion of the present application [answer at page 7].
In addition we do not find the appellant's argument that Osako does not describe
a circulation traction mechanism and driving members acting on the printed products to
convey the printed products in a direction parallel to the conveying direction to be
persuasive.
In our view, the conveyor 111 is a circulating traction mechanism and pushers
112 are driving members that convey the printed products in a direction parallel to a
conveying direction of the conveying device.
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain this rejection.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007