Appeal No. 95-4852
Application 08/224,090
Claim 21 further defines the “first means” recited in parent
claim 20 as comprising “a shaft having a plurality of spikes
extending radially therefrom in a helical pattern”. Although
Woten’s auger 18 does not meet this additional limitation, the
examiner’s reliance on Morris to cure the deficiency (see pages 5
and 6 in the answer) is well taken.
Morris discloses a general purpose material feeder adapted
“to prevent caking or other adhesions of the material, whereby
the material ceases to flow freely through the outlet” (page 1,
lines 37 through 39). The feeder includes a plurality of shafts,
each having an array of fingers or spikes extending therefrom in
a spiral or helical pattern. The spiral or helical spike
patterns serve to agitate the material and to convey it toward
the center of the feeder (see page 1, line 105 through page 2,
line 13).
The teachings of Morris relating to the agitating and
conveying characteristics of rotating shafts having helical spike
patterns would have furnished the artisan with ample motivation
or suggestion to modify Woten’s auger 18 by providing it with
spikes as recited in claim 21 in order to enhance its agitating
capability while retaining its conveying capability. The
appellant’s argument that “Morris does not provide the function
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007