Appeal No. 97-0180
Application 08/374,131
sloped section 6 and an unsloped section 7. Claim 7 requires
that "said sloped front and rear walls being sloped for their
entire lengths." We agree with the appellant that the walls
of the sleeve or hopper of Kinnear are not sloped for their
entire length, but rather include a sloped portion 6 and an
unsloped portion 7. In addition we do not agree with the
examiner that the motivation for combining the hopper sleeve
of Kinnear with the hopper of Ryan is to prevent the
likelihood of bridging of agricultural material because as we
stated above, Ryan does not disclose that any agricultural
material becomes bridged.
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Ryan in view of Kinnear.
The examiner’s rejections of claims 4-7 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 are not sustained.
The examiner’s rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. §
112, second paragraph is sustained.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007