Appeal No. 96-4007
Application No. 08/294,769
claim 6, the combined teachings of Beidler and Keller fail to
teach or suggest a second biasing means which biases the free end
of the gripping member away from the surface of the conveyor
belt. While the examiner states that arm/finger 59 seen in
Figures 1, 2 and 5 of Beidler biases the gripper open, we see no
basis in Beidler for that statement. Arm/finger 59 is engaged by
film on conveyer belts 63 and 64 to elevate arms 51 and 52 to
disengage the cross arm 48 thus permitting the chains 41 to be
driven. In this regard, arm/finger 59 is not in any way
responsive to the second biasing means (e.g., spring 538 in
Figure 5 or spring 640 in Figure 6) as set forth in the
appellant's claim 6 since the arm/finger 59 does not engage the
grippers and therefore does not bias the grippers away from the
chains 41. Moreover, arm/finger 59 is part of the clutch
mechanism and would be part of the structure removed from Beidler
when Beidler is modified to operate continuously as suggested by
Keller. With respect to claim 7, the combined teachings of
Beidler and Keller fail to teach or suggest a surface of the
gripping member which comprises a foam pad or a serrated edge.
The mere fact that the gripper jaws 53, 54 of Keller "inherently
will not damage the delicate articles" (as asserted by the
examiner) provides no teaching or suggestion of the use of a
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007