Appeal No. 98-1207 Page 15
Application No. 08/420,648
requires a significant length to accommodate the horizontal
separation between the grizzly bars 46 and the conveyor belt
30. The appellant then states that the claimed structure
provides for a more compact machine with the attendant
advantages because the grizzly bar opening is directly over
the screen vibrator unit and fines conveyor. We find this
argument unpersuasive for the following reasons. First, the
claimed second conveyor reads on Bishop's conveyor 26, not
conveyor 30 since conveyor 26 receives the fines passing
through the screens 18 and 20. Second, as shown in Figures 2
and 3, Bishop's conveyor 26 and screens 18 and 20 are
positioned below the opening over which the grizzly bars 46
are mounted. Thus, the claimed subject mater is suggested by
the combined teachings of the applied prior art. Lastly, it
appears to us that every limitation of claims 32 and 37 is
readable on Bishop's machine. 3
3A disclosure that anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102 also
renders the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103, for
"anticipation is the epitome of obviousness." Jones v. Hardy,
727 F.2d 1524, 1529, 220 USPQ 1021, 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
See also In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794, 215 USPQ 569,
571 (CCPA 1982); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1402, 181 USPQ
641, 644 (CCPA 1974).
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007