Appeal 2007-1422
Reexamination Control 90/007,260
Patent 6,093,139
Finally, we consider the phrase “next product’s front portion.”
Applicant’s specification does not define a “next product’s front portion,” so
this phrase must be given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the Specification. Appellant argues that “the edge gripped by [the prior
art] is not ‘a next product’s front portion after a cutting operation’ – it is a
prior product’s front portion” (Br. p. 9). However, there is no language in
Applicant’s claims or specification that requires this distinction. Thus,
under a broad interpretation, this phrase encompasses any front portion of
any next product.
Prior Art
With the terms defined, we can compare the claimed subject matter to
the prior art. Claim 1 first requires “a pinless product folding cylinder
rotating about an axis of rotation and having a surface supporting an
incoming material” (Appendix A to the Br.). Sheldon does not disclose a
product folding cylinder. Stab discloses a folder assembly, which includes a
collection cylinder 1 cooperating with a folding cylinder 26 (Stab, col. 3, ll.
10-19). As stated earlier, Applicant’s product folding cylinder cooperates
with a tucking blade and two fold rollers as a folding assembly (Belanger,
col. 3, ll. 24-31). Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that either of the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013