Appeal 2007-2861
Application 10/861,057
Finally, Appellants clearly are incorrect in urging that gripper finger
130 of Dufour does not interact with gripper bar 132 (Reply Br. 1).
Consistent with the claim requirement that the gripper member interacts with
the fixed jaw, Patentee’s gripper finger (i.e., gripper member) 130 interacts
with fixedly mounted gripper bar (i.e., fixed jaw) 132 to thereby grip and
fold the web (a.k.a. signature) (Dufour, col. 4, ll. 25-29; col. 5, ll. 36-49;
claims 25 and 27 at cols. 9-10; figs. 1-2).
For the above-stated reasons, Appellants have failed to show error in
the Examiner’s finding that claims 1 and 3 are anticipated by Dufour.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of these claims as
being anticipated by Dufour.
THE § 103 REJECTION
Rejected claims 2 and 4 require that the cam follower arm and the
gripper member each define an involute profile. According to the Examiner,
Dufour’s gripper member (i.e., gripper finger) 130 defines an involute
profile (Answer 4), and Patentee’s cam follower arm (i.e., linkage) 139
either defines an involute profile (Answer 6-7) or would have been provided
with an involute profile by one with ordinary skill in this art (Answer 4).
Appellants argue that Dufour’s gripper finger 130 and linkage 139 are
not in contact with one another so that they do not define involute profiles
nor would there have been any reason to provide them with involute profiles
(Appeal Br. 4-5). In this regard, Appellants define the term “involute
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013