Appeal 2007-2861
Application 10/861,057
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Dufour.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dufour.
For the reasons which follow, we will sustain each of these rejections.
THE § 102 REJECTION
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s anticipation finding is incorrect
because Dufour does not disclose a gripper for a web folding cylinder. In
this regard, Appellants explain that Dufour’s gripper (i.e., gripper finger 130
and gripper bar 132) is carried by deceleration drum 114 and contend that
this deceleration drum is not a folding cylinder (Appeal Br. 4; Reply Br. 1).
This contention is unpersuasive for a number of reasons.
First, the appealed claims are directed to the subcombination of a
gripper rather than to the combination of a web folding cylinder with a
gripper carried thereby. Therefore, that the claimed gripper is for a web
folding cylinder does not distinguish an otherwise identical prior art gripper
for a deceleration drum. Second, Dufour’s deceleration drum 114 via the
seizing device 128 contained therein indisputably performs a web (a.k.a.
signature) folding function (Dufour, col. 4, ll. 16-29; claim 10 bridging
col. 7-8; claim 20 at col. 8; fig. 1). Because this deceleration drum is a
cylinder and performs a web folding function, we share the Examiner’s
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013