Appeal No. 96-1883
Application 08/078,380
Claim 5 adds to claim 1 the requirement that the member upon
which the articles are moved be flexible. Here we do not agree
with the examiner’s position. It is our view that this feature
of the appellants’ invention is neither explicitly taught by
Whelan, nor would Whelan have suggested it to one of ordinary
skill in the art.
This rejection of claim 5 is not sustained.
Claims 28 through 32 have been grouped together by the
appellants. Claims 28 through 31 add to claim 1 a limitation
establishing a numerical value for the angle between the outlet
and the working surface (the “effective angle”), and a numerical
relationship between the length and the width of the outlet in
the working surface. Claim 32 defines the effective angle in
terms of the speed at which the issuing stream propels the
article to be transported. In view of their being grouped
together, we need focus only upon claim 28, as being
representative.
We begin our analysis here by noting that the appellants’
have, on pages 1 and 2 of the substitute specification (Paper No.
21), discussed certain patents, after which they acknowledged the
presence in the prior art of article handling devices in which
the fluid issues from openings in the working surface at “smaller
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007