Appeal 2007-1719
Application 10/655,483
Fact 5). As such, Greiner does not teach or suggest that row crop dividers 12 and
14 are pivotable to a retracted transport position, as claimed (Finding of Fact 5).
The Examiner further found that “due to the guide means (ref 38), the entire
divider/guide apparatus accommodated, sideways, into a transport position”
(Answer 9). To the extent that the Examiner is relying on the movement of crop
guide means 38 as evidence that the crop dividers 12 and 14 are pivotable to a
retracted transport position, we disagree with the Examiner’s findings. Although
Greiner’s crop guide apparatus 22 is bolted to the crop dividers 12 and 14 (Finding
of Fact 2), the crop guide means 38 are adjustable independently of movement of
the crop dividers 12 and 14 (Finding of Fact 3). As such, pivoting movement of
crop guide means 38 in either a horizontal or vertical direction (Finding of Fact 4)
does not impart the same pivoting movement to the crop dividers 12 and 14
because the movement of crop guide means 38 is independent of the movement of
crop dividers 12 and 14 (Finding of Fact 3).
Further, to the extent that the Examiner found the combination of harvesting
attachment 10 and crop guide apparatus 22 meets the claimed crop dividers
pivotable between a forwards projecting operating position and a retracted
transport position, we disagree. Even when pivoted between a wider or narrower
position, crop dividers 12, 14 remain in a forward projecting operating position,
and similarly, crop guide members 38 remain in a forward projecting operating
position when pivoted horizontally and/or vertically (Finding of Fact 5). As such,
Greiner does not teach or suggest moving either crop dividers 12, 14 or crop guide
members 38 to a retracted transport position (Finding of Fact 5).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013