Appeal No. 2001-0019
Application No. 09/240,197
a stack of foliage [14] may be loaded onto the bed from
a position on the ground . . . and also may be
successively advanced along the conveyor bed [16] to
provide an overhang beneath and forward of a rotating
angularly disposed variable cutter [20] which travels
horizontally and then vertically downward in a zig-zag
pattern to successively cut slices of foliage from the
overhang of the stack. The sliced material is forced
out by a shield [92] of the cutter and falls under
force of gravity substantially continuously as it is
cut onto a transverse foliage conveyor [18] at the
front of the vehicle and is thereby deposited upon the
ground as a livestock feed windrow [19] while the
vehicle is displaced or into feed bins or onto another
vehicle for subsequent processing while said stack
vehicle is stationary.
In applying the above reference teachings against the
appealed claims, the examiner concedes (answer, pages 4-5) that
Fincham lacks several of the features set forth in the appealed
claims, including a hydraulic system that operates to expel bales
from the bale chamber (claim 1), and a baler that includes a
first opening for receiving material to be baled and a second
distinct opening for expelling a formed bale (claim 7). In
addition, it is clear that Fincham lacks many of the features
called for in appealed claim 24, including, but not limited to, a
second gib assembly having a splitting wedge mounted to the
trailer for reciprocating movement, and a hydraulic cylinder and
piston rod coupled to both a first gib assembly for compressing
material to be baled and the second gib assembly for splitting
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007