Appeal No. 96-4004
Application 08/342,603
bars.
According to the examiner, it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made
“to substitute a spaced-apart bar configuration as taught by
Eggenmuller for the density control panel configuration in the
Cox device and method, since this modification would have been
to simply select an alternative density control configuration,
known in the art” (answer, page 4).
The appellant, on the other hand, contends that
[i]nasmuch as the pressing tools 4 of
Eggenmuller are for a completely different purpose
than to provide a means for adjusting the density of
the material in the storage bag, appellant believes
that it would not have been obvious for one having
ordinary skill in the art to rely on Eggenmuller,
since the pressing tools of Eggenmuller were not
designed to have the silage material flow between
the bars, but were designed to force the material
into the tunnel. It therefore is believed that it
would not have been obvious to substitute the
structure of Eggenmuller into Cox inasmuch as the
panels of Cox are not provided for forcing material
into the bag, but are merely provided to narrow the
opening in the area where the material is passing
therethrough. It is believed that this is
especially significant in that Cox designed his
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007