Appeal No. 98-1207 Page 14
Application No. 08/420,648
The appellant has not contested the obviousness of
modifying Downey based upon the teachings of Bishop.
The appellant's argument (brief, pp. 6-7 and reply brief,
pp. 1-2) for patentability of claim 17 is that Downey lacks a
conveyor positively conveying material over the grizzly bars.
We do not agree. The plurality of grizzly bars recited in
claim 17 reads on Downey's front bars 45 of grizzly 44. As
shown in Figure 4 of Downey, the paddles 23 of the elevator 24
(i.e., conveyor) positively convey material over the front
bars 45 to the apex of the grizzly 44. The appellant's
assertion that the presence of Downey's rear bars 46 of
grizzly 44 prevents the claimed recitation that the conveyor
positively conveys material over the grizzly bars from reading
on Downey's vehicle is without merit. In this regard, claim
17 is drafted utilizing the transitional phrase "comprising."
Therefore, claim 17 is open-ended and does not exclude
additional, unrecited elements such as Downey's rear bars 46.
The appellant's argument (brief, p. 7 and reply brief, p.
2) for patentability of claims 32 and 37 is that Bishop
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007