Appeal 2007-2560
Application 10/310,356
cross at the pivot point of mechanism 5. Hence, the dispositive issue on
appeal is whether the paths taken by sheets of material 11 and 12 of Shingu
to shelf 6 in fact cross at a crossing point, as presently claimed. Our review
of the reference and the language of the appealed claims finds us in
agreement with the Examiner’s position.
As acknowledged by Appellants, “[i]f one were to draw a line
representing the path of sheet material along table B, through mechanism 5,
and onto lower table 6, and then draw a second line representing the path of
sheet material along table B, through mechanism 5, and onto upper table 6,
the two paths would make a “Y” shape” (principal Br. 6, first para.).
Consequently, we find it reasonable to conclude that the paths of the two
sheets, represented by the upper angled portions of the letter “Y,” cross at
that point where they converge at the vertical segment of the letter “Y.”
Hence, we find no error in the Examiner’s position that the paths of the two
reference sheets cross at the pivot point of mechanism 5. Furthermore, the
paths of the reference sheets are lines, or two-dimensional planes, that
extend infinitely and cross at the pivot point of mechanism 5. Likewise, the
presently claimed paths of the cover material and ticket substrate are not
concrete, structural elements of the claimed apparatus, but merely abstract
lines or planes that intersect at a crossing point. Accordingly, we find no
patentable distinction between apparatus within the scope of the appealed
claims and the apparatus fairly described by Shingu.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims is
affirmed.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013