Appeal 2007-1799
Application 10/036,991
mailpiece is sanitized as it passes by the gap along the feed path between the
first set of guide walls and the second set of guide walls.
The combination of Call and Stirling is discussed above. According
to Appellants, the combination of Call and Stirling fails to teach a transport
belt which travels along an edge of the first set of guide walls and an edge of
the second set of guide walls (Br. 14-15). We disagree. As discussed above,
Stirling teaches an irradiation apparatus comprising a primary shield that
includes a channel (e.g., first and second guide walls) that accommodates a
conveyor means (Stirling, col. 3, ll. 44-47). Stated differently, the conveyor
means travels along an edge of the first and second set of guide walls.
While Appellants’ Specification discloses an embodiment wherein the guide
walls are replaced with vertically oriented transport belts (Specification 13:
¶ 041), claim 13 does not require the transport belts to be vertically oriented.
To the contrary, claim 13 reads on a horizontal transport belt positioned in
the channel of the primary shield, e.g., between the first and second set of
guide walls, that travels along an edge of the first and second set of guide
walls. Accordingly, Appellants fail to distinguish Stirling’s conveyor means
from their transport belt.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the rejection of claim 13 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Call and
Stirling. Claims 14 and 15 fall together with claim 13.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013