Appeal No. 96-0079
Application No. 08/114,391
terminology "one side of the structure" as recited in claims 1
and 4 refers to the long sides of the wagon (structure), not the
short ends of the wagon (structure).
Next, we turn to the issue of whether the limitations in
claims 1 and 4 relative to the size of the "openings" are
entitled to be given weight. We agree with the appellant's
argument (brief, pp. 8-11) that the examiner inappropriately
ignored the limitations in claims 1 and 4 relative to the size of
the "openings." The limitations in claims 1 and 4 relative to
the size of the "openings" limit the size of the "openings" in
the structure being claimed and therefore must be given weight.
See In re Stencel, 828 F.2d 751, 754, 4 USPQ2d 1071, 1073 (Fed.
Cir. 1987).
Having interpreted the claims on appeal in the manner
explained above, we find ourselves in agreement with the
appellant that the claimed invention would not have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
appellant's invention based on the combined teachings of Harton
and Schoessow. While we agree with the examiner that it would
have been obvious to provide the feeder of Harton with a
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007