Appeal No. 2004-1211
Application No. 09/945,418
OPINION
For the reasons which follow, this rejection cannot be
sustained.
We agree with the Appellants’ argument that Hood’s combination
of a baler and a bale wrapping apparatus does not include the here
claimed feature wherein the wrapping apparatus is located entirely
behind the baler. In response to this argument, the Examiner
contends that “Figure 1 of Hood... clearly illustrates a wrapping
apparatus located entirely behind a baler” (Answer, page 3). This
is incorrect.
On the contrary, Figure 1 of the Hood patent unquestionably
shows that the wrapper assembly 40 and the wrapping structure 50
are disposed beneath tailgate 22 which is part of baler 12 (e.g.,
see lines 34-39 in column 3). Therefore, while Hood’s wrapper
assembly and wrapping structure may be located behind the front
portion 13 of baler 12, they are located beneath rather than behind
the rear or tailgate portion of the baler. As such, patentee’s
33
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007