Appeal No. 1999-1408 Page 8
Application No. 08/809/629
31, we conclude that a prima facie case of obviousness has been established with regard
to independent apparatus claim 36, and we will sustain the rejection.
Claim 37 adds to claim 36 a displaceable “feeder chute.” We agree with the
examiner that the Hofmann “funnel guides” 72 meet this requirement. The rejection of
claim 37 is sustained.
The rejection of dependent claims 38, 43, 45 and 49-54 also is sustained, in that
the appellant chose not to argue before this Board that these claims were separately
patentable.
Clearly, the pivoting bracket and associated rail arrangement and carriage structure
set forth in dependent claim 39 are not disclosed or taught by either of the two references
applied against this claim. We do not agree with the examiner that such structure would
have been an obvious matter of design choice, in view of the advantages of such a
structure pointed out by the appellant. This being the case, we will not sustain the rejection
of claim 39 or of claims 40-42 and 44, which depend therefrom.
Dependent method claims 34 and 35 and dependent apparatus claims 55-59 stand
rejected as being unpatentable over Hofmann in view of Leweringhaus and Bittner, which
was cited by the examiner for its teaching of forming parts of an item separately and then
joining them together. Method claims 34 and 35 depend from claim 31, and their
patentability apart from claim 31 was not argued. This being the case, the rejection of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007