Appeal No. 95-4852
Application 08/224,090
thereof which may have become somewhat compressed during
packaging (see column 1, lines 26 though 45; and column 4, line
31 et seq.). Consequently, “the separate particles, or nodules,
of the material being fed will be positively separated during the
feeding operation” (column 2, lines 19 through 21). Indeed,
Woten expressly emphasizes that “at all times the material is
kept in movement and there is no opportunity for compaction”
(column 4, lines 65 and 66). The auger 18 also functions to
convey the insulation material in one direction toward an outlet
or exit opening 15 (see Figure 2 and column 2, line 68 through
column 3, line 8.
In light of the foregoing, the appellant’s argument that
Woten’s auger 18 does not perform the function required of the
“first means” recited in claim 20 is not persuasive. Since such
argument is the only one advanced by the appellant with respect
to the standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of independent claim
20 and dependent claim 22, we shall sustain this rejection.
We shall also sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection
of dependent claim 21 as being unpatentable over Woten in view of
Morris.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007