Appeal No. 97-0180
Application 08/374,131
we do not find any motivation to modify the device in Ryan so
as to substitute the Komossa hopper means therein. In any
case, even if there were motivation to substitute the hopper
means in Komossa for the hopper means of Ryan, such
substitution would result in a device with movable front and
rear walls which move from a sloped position to an unsloped
position. Therefore this combination would not satisfy the
requirement of the claims that the walls are “fixed and non-
movable." In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claims 4-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Ryan in view of Komossa.
We turn next the examiner’s rejection of claim 5 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. The appellant has not
submitted any arguments concerning this rejection. Therefore,
we are constrained to sustain this rejection of the examiner.
We turn finally to the examiner’s rejection of claim 7
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ryan in view
of Kinnear.
Kinnear discloses an apparatus and process for forming a
mat which includes a sleeve that is adapted to receive
material that is to be formed into the mat. The sleeve has a
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007