Appeal No. 96-4197
Application No. 08/425,261
and provide automatic controlled operations without human
muscular force. Even if we agree with the Examiner's
rationale, we are then only left with reasons to substitute
the Welker probe insertion apparatus for the Kamrat device.
The Examiner has not offered any reason to modify the Kamrat
device in which the threaded bars 7 shown in figure 1 are
replaced with two hydraulic cylinders. Furthermore, the
Examiner has not offered any reason to modify the Kamrat
device further by redesigning the fastening means such that
the hydraulic cylinders are positioned adjacent to and offset
to the side of the stuffing and blocking value so that force
is precluded to extend beyond the insertion rod.
Upon a careful review of Kamrat and Welker, we fail to
find that either one of these references recognizes the
problem of providing the insertion power to the insertion rod
without extending the height of the structure. Furthermore,
we fail to find any suggestion or desirability disclosed other
than what is provided by Appellant's specification.
Therefore, we find that the Examiner has failed to establish
that the prior art suggested the desirability of the
modification as proposed in the rejection.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007