Appeal No. 97-1691
Application No. 08/519,375
infringed without infringing claim 1 of the instant
application.
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the rejection
of claims 1-10 under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting.
Turning to the rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Rieger in view of Strömberg,
independent claim 1 expressly requires a retaining wall and
means for moving the retaining wall such that the
surface in contact with the highly compressed mass
moves away from said mass and then into an opening
in a wall of said packaging chamber and in smooth
alignment with said interior surface of said
packaging chamber when in a second position . . . .
[Emphasis added.]
Recognizing that Rieger does not teach such a limitation,
the examiner relies on the teachings of Strömberg for
the concept of a moveable retaining wall 29 that
pivots into openings in the packaging chamber and
back to its initial position as one of the walls of
a compression chamber (figures 16a and 17a).
[Answer, page 7.]
However, as the appellant has correctly pointed out on page 10
of the brief, the covers or retaining walls 29 of Strömberg do
not move into an opening in a packaging chamber as the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007