Appeal No. 2006-1343 5
Application No. 10/121,530
The first difference highlighted by the examiner between the
claimed subject matter and Mack is that Mack fails to teach a
transport device that transports the printed products in a
suspended manner. The examiner looks to Landgren to address this
difference, urging that Landgren teaches a conveyor chain (4) with
gripper systems (50) which transport printed products in a
suspended position. In the examiner’s view, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the delivery
device of Mack with the suspension gripper transport device of
Landgren “if one desired to transport the printed products in a
manner that would reduce the amount of contact on the freshly
printed products so as to reduce the possibility of smearing the
ink and to make the transport system less complicated, requiring
less parts and maintenance and therefore less costly” (answer,
page 4).
The second difference highlighted by the examiner is that Mack
fails to disclose or teach a conveying drum as defined in claim 1
on appeal that serves to transfer the printed products from the
conveying path to the stacking device. To account for this
difference the examiner turns to Müller, contending that Müller
teaches a conveying drum (7) located at the end of a conveying path
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007