Appeal No. 97-0180
Application 08/374,131
was made to have substituted the hopper means of Komossa for
the hopper means of Ryan to reduce the possibility of any
material build up at the outlet end of the hopper means where
the walls merge. [Examiner’s Answer at page 5].
We note that it is the burden of the examiner to
establish why one having ordinary skill in the art would have
been led to the claimed invention by the reasonable teachings
or suggestions found in the prior art, or by reasonable
inference to the artisan contained in such teachings or
suggestions. See In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 994, 217 USPQ
1, 5 (Fed. Cir. 1983). In our view, the examiner has not met
this burden. In the examiner’s view the motivation for
substituting the hopper means of Komossa for the hopper means
disclosed in Ryan is to reduce the possibility of any material
build up at the outlet end of the hopper where the walls
merge. However, there is no disclosure in Ryan to indicate
that there is a problem with material build up at the outlet
of the hopper means where the walls merge. In addition,
Komosa teaches that it is the mobility of the walls rather
than the slope of the walls that prevents the likelihood of
bridging in the hopper means (Col. 4, lines 6-68). As such,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007