Appeal No. 2003-0679 Page 8
Application No. 09/730,163
three windrows alongside each other for being subsequently picked up together for
processing by another machine, such as an ensilage harvester, for example.
In our view, the combined teachings of the Admitted Prior Art and Welsch would
have made it obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in
the art to have mounted a windrow grouper attachment (i.e., a swath former) as taught
by Welsch to each of the mowing units of the Admitted Prior Art. However, such a
modification to the Admitted Prior Art does not result in the subject matter of claim 1. In
that regard, Welsch's windrow grouper attachments (i.e., a swath formers) would be
mounted to the mowing units of the Admitted Prior Art not to the mobile central frame
on which the mowing units of the Admitted Prior Art are respectively mounted on
opposite sides of the central frame. Thus, the mowing implement of the Admitted Prior
Art as modified by the teachings of Welsch lacks the claimed "support structure
mounting said at least one swath former to said frame, exclusive of said one of said pair
of mowing units."
Since the combined teachings of the Admitted Prior Art and Welsch are not
suggestive of the subject matter of claim 1 for the reasons set forth above, the decision
of the examiner to reject claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007