Appeal No. 96-4004
Application 08/342,603
equipment so that the entire upper surface and sides
of the silage would be engaged by panels or
bladders. Cox did not desire to control the density
by passing the material through spaced-apart bars,
as in appellant’s apparatus. Inasmuch as
Eggenmuller was not concerned with varying the
density by permitting silage to pass between
adjustable bars, it certainly would not have been
obvious to combine the teachings of Cox and
Eggenmuller, since the same would have taught away
from appellant’s invention [brief, page 5].
The essence of the appellant’s argument is persuasive.
As indicated above, Eggenmuller’s pressing tools 4 function to
press feed material into forming channel 5. In this regard,
they correspond to Cox’s tine shaft assemblies 34 and 36 which
function to compressively urge feed material into compression
and forming chamber 40 and delivery chamber 44. While both of
these feed pressing/urging mechanisms play a role in
controlling the density of the feed products produced by their
respective machines, their purpose differs markedly from that
of Cox’s pivot panels 140. In this light, the examiner’s
conclusion that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
found the configuration of Eggenmuller’s pressing tools 4 to
be an obvious alternative to the configuration of Cox’s pivot
panels 140 is not well taken. In short, the combined
teachings of Cox and Eggenmuller would not have suggested an
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007