Appeal No. 97-1626
Application 08/299,123
conveyors. In addition, the supplemental conveyor is required
to be “removably attachable” to the adjacent intermittent
conveyors.
In rejecting claim 1 as being anticipated by Masino, the
examiner has found that members 7 and 10 of Masino constitute
intermittently driven conveyors and that members 8, 9
constitute a continuously driven conveyor. As to the
requirement that the supplemental conveyor is “removably
attachable” to the intermittent conveyors, the examiner has
taken the position that “conveyors 8, 9 [of Masino] are
removable the same way they were mounted by screwdrivers,
hammers, wrenches, etc. Note anything man made is removably
detached by screwdrivers, hammers, wrenches, saws, torches or
explosives” (answer, page 3).
While we appreciate the point the examiner is trying to
make, the examiner’s broad interpretation of “conveyor” and
“removably attachable” is improper in this instance because it
fails to take into account appellants’ disclosure. When read
in light of appellants’ specification, the term “conveyor” in
this instance constitutes not merely the belts 19 and 20 of
the intermittent conveyors and/or the endless belt 33 of the
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007