Appeal 2007-1719
Application 10/655,483
The issue before us is whether the Appellants have shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1-6, 9-14, and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Greiner in combination with Hurlburt or Henry. This issue turns
on whether Greiner teaches or suggests a crop divider that is pivotable between a
forward projecting operating position and a retracted transport position.
FINDINGS OF FACT
We find that the following enumerated findings are supported by at least a
preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427,
7 USPQ2d 1152, 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary
standard for proceedings before the Office).
1. Greiner discloses a known adjustable harvesting attachment 10 having
crop dividers 12, 14, and 16, which are movably mounted on a frame 18
so that crop dividers 12 and 14 can be pivoted toward and away from
each other and crop divider 16 to accommodate varying row widths of
row crop 20 (Greiner, col. 2, ll. 10-21, Figs. 1 and 2). As such, Greiner
discloses that each crop divider is pivotable horizontally about only a
single axis to accommodate crop rows of varying widths.
2. Greiner further discloses an adjustable crop guide apparatus 22 for use
with harvesting attachment 10. The crop guide apparatus is bolted to the
row crop dividers 12, 14 (Greiner, col. 2, ll. 22-23 and 47-49, Fig. 3).
3. Greiner discloses that the crop guide apparatus 22 includes crop guide
members 38, which are adjustable independently of movement of the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013