Appeal No. 96-4004
Application 08/342,603
agricultural bagging machine or method meeting the particular
limitations in independent claims 10 and 16 relating to the
silage density control means.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 rejection of claims 10 and 16, or of claims 11 through
15, 17 and 18 which depend therefrom, as being unpatentable
over Cox in view of Eggenmuller.
As a final matter, we note that in a decision on appeal
involving parent Application 07/912,873, a different panel of
this Board acted pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b) to enter a
rejection essentially similar to the rejection involved in the
instant appeal against essentially similar claimed subject
matter. To the extent that the decision in the instant2
2Given this circumstance, the statement on page 1 of the
appellant’s brief that “[t]here are no appeals or
interferences which are related to this case” is somewhat
perplexing. 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(2) requires an appeal brief to contain “[a]
statement identifying by number and filing date all other
appeals or interferences known to appellant, the appellant’s
legal representative, or assignee which will directly affect
or be directly affected by or have a bearing on the Board’s
decision in the pending appeal” (emphasis added). Giving the
appellant the benefit of the doubt, we assume that the failure
to identify the prior appeal in the appellant’s brief was due
to an inadvertent oversight rather than any attempt to conceal
the result of the earlier appeal.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007