The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte JEFFREY L. CABLE, WILLIAM J. KURNOCIK,
DANIEL R. FINK, and RICHARD J. ORR
__________
Appeal 2007-1214
Application 10/272,270
Technology Center 3600
__________
Decided: July 16, 2007
__________
Before DONALD E. ADAMS, ERIC GRIMES, and RICHARD M.
LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judges.
GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a
vibratory conveyor. The Examiner has rejected the claims as obvious. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
BACKGROUND
“Vibratory feeders and conveyors are widely used . . . for such
purposes as the metering of bulk material, such as ore, stone, [or] grain, . . .
from storage bins to other processing equipment” (Specification 1). They
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013