Appeal No. 1996-2802 Page 9
Application No. 08/140,142
less explained why a compressed wood fuel pellet having the
characteristics required by this claim would have been obvious
in view of the teachings of the five references discussed
above. Our own analysis has convinced us that the combined
teachings of the references fail to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness with regard to the wood pellet defined in
claim 18. We therefore find ourselves in agreement with the
appellant that the rejection of independent claim 18 and
dependent claims 20 and 21 should not be sustained.
For essentially the same reasons as were explained above
with regard to claim 1, we also will not sustain the rejection
of independent claim 14 and dependent claims 15-17 and 22,
which stand rejected on the basis of the combined teachings of
Matthews, McCan, Gibbons, Bonlie and Pfleumer.
Claim 14 is directed to a machine for making compressed
wood fuel pellets which comprises the elements necessary to
perform all of the steps set forth in claim 1. These include a
splitting edge for splitting a portion out of a wood wafer, a
cage surface rearwardly of the splitting edge for confining the
split portion in a direction generally perpendicular to the
grain, and a compression hammer and opposed anvil to compress
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007