Appeal 2007-2861
Application 10/861,057
finding that deceleration drum 114 corresponds to the web folding cylinder
recited in the appealed claims.
Appellants also argue that Dufour’s gripper bar 132 is not a fixed jaw
as required by the appealed claims (Reply Br. 1). However, gripper bar 132
is expressly disclosed as fixedly mounted and as performing the web (a.k.a.
signature) gripping function performed by Appellants’ claimed jaw (Dufour,
col. 4, ll. 25-29). We recognize that Dufour’s gripper bar 132 is not fixed
relative to deceleration drum (i.e., folding cylinder) 114. However, the
appealed claims do not require the fixed jaw to be immovable or fixed
relative to a web folding cylinder. For these reasons, we agree with the
Examiner’s finding that Patentee’s gripper bar 132 satisfies the fixed jaw
requirement of the appealed claims.
In addition, we perceive no merit in Appellants’ assertion that
“[Dufour’s] linkage 139 is not the presently claimed cam follower arm
rotatably connected to the folding cylinder” (Reply Br. 1). This is because
linkage 39 structurally corresponds to an arm and is designed to follow cam
138 (Dufour, col. 5, ll. 11-24; fig. 1). It is appropriate, therefore, to find this
linkage as corresponding to the here-claimed cam follower arm. Moreover,
linkage 139 unquestionably rotates during movement (fig. 1) and is
connected, albeit indirectly, to the deceleration drum (i.e., folding cylinder)
114, thus satisfying the rotatably connected requirement of Appellants’
claims.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013