Appeal No. 96-0079
Application No. 08/114,391
hopper/bin in view of Schoessow, we do not see that the applied
prior art suggests a feed hopper that is permanently affixed in
the livestock feeding structure, or wherein at least a portion of
one side of the feed hopper is permanently affixed to the hinged
portion of one upright framework side so as to rotate therewith,
as required in claim 1 on appeal. In our opinion, a combination
of the applied prior art would have provided a removable
hopper/bin in the feeder of Harton, not a hopper/bin that is
permanently affixed in the feeder of Harton. Since all the
limitations of claim 1 are not met or rendered obvious by the
prior art applied by the examiner, we will not sustain the
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 1.
We agree with the appellant's argument (brief, p. 7)
regarding claim 4 that Harton's feeder, even when modified by
Schoessow in the manner set forth by the examiner, does not
provide unobstructed access into the structure above the level of
the floor. In that regard, we note that Harton's crossbar 9,
reinforcing structure 4 and roof 3 would obstruct access into the
feeder above the level of the floor 7 as shown in Figures 1 and
2. Since all the limitations of claim 4 are not met by the prior
art applied by the examiner, we will not sustain the 35 U.S.C.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007