Appeal No. 2006-1015 Παγε 3
Application No. 10/358,460
The examiner has rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). To support a rejection
of a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), it must be shown that each element of the claim is
found, either expressly described or under principles of inherency, in a single prior art
reference. See Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781,
789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
The examiner’s finding regarding this rejection as it is directed to claim 21 can be
found on page of the answer.
Appellant argues that Diekhans does not describe an adjustment device (1)
operable to move the position finding device relative to the agricultural machine (2) in
operable communication with the position finding device or (3) which moves the position
finding device according to communication of a change of a change in the guide
variable within the region of coverage.
Diekhans describes a position finding device for an agricultural machine including
at least one position finding device OV and an adjustment device HSV. The adjustment
device HSV may be adjusted to thereby adjust the position finding device OV. In this
regard, Fig.2 depicts two positions of the adjustment device and thereby two positions
of the position finding device. As the position finding device is moved by changing the
links on the adjustment device HSV, it is our position that the adjustment device is in
communication with the position finding device and moves the position finding device as
broadly claimed. However, the adjustment device does not move the position finding
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007