Appeal 2006-3398
Application 10/132,199
47)). The issue before us is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Parkander and Belec.
FINDINGS OF FACT
We find the following facts by a preponderance of the evidence:
Parkander discloses a method for handling sheets between a laser printer and
a sorting device (Parkander, col. 1, ll. 5-9). Parkander teaches that by using the
method, it is possible to maintain operation of the laser printer even if the sorting
speed of the sorting device momentarily is insufficient for delivering sheet groups
with the same speed as the sheets are produced by the laser printer (Parkander, col.
1, ll. 33-37). Parkander discloses that the sheets 3 from the laser printer 4 are fed
to a buffer supply 11 before being sent to the sorting device 5 (Parkander, col. 2, ll.
8-10). Parkander discloses that the buffer supply 11 is housed in a magazine 12,
which permits piling of a substantial number of sheets 3 (Parkander, col. 2, ll. 19-
20). Parkander teaches that the laser printer 4 is controlled by a control system 30
to maintain its operating condition as long as the magazine 12 is not full, so that
the laser printer 4 can continue its operation to produce sheets 3 even if the sorting
device 5 does not sort sheets 3 at the same rate as long as the buffer supply 11 is
not full (Parkander, col. 2, ll. 30-38). Parkander discloses that the laser printer 4
provides separator sheets 3 with information regarding sheet group division, and
the control system 30 uses the information from these separator sheets 3 to control
operation of the sorting device 5 (Parkander, col. 3, ll. 50-58). Parkander discloses
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013