Appeal No. 98-1207 Page 13
Application No. 08/420,648
After the scope and content of the prior art are
determined, the differences between the prior art and the
claims at issue are to be ascertained. Graham v. John Deere
Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966).
Based on our analysis and review of Downey and the
independent claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (i.e.,
claims 17, 32 and 37), it is our opinion that the only
differences are: (1) the screen vibrator unit as recited in
claim 17, (2) the screen vibrator unit as recited in claim 32,
and (3) the screen unit as recited in claim 37.
In applying the above-noted test for obviousness, we
reach the same conclusion as the examiner (answer, p. 4) that
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time the invention was made to modify Downey to have a
screen vibrator unit as suggested and taught by Bishop in
order to provide a means of further separating out finer
materials from the material which passes through the grizzly
bars of Downey.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007