Appeal No. 98-3125
Application Nos. 08/294,730, 90/003,655, 90/003,826 and
90/004,552
10, page 4). From these teachings, the examiner concludes
that for purposes of providing a more controllable feed of
logs to a debarking unit, and for purposes of ensuring front
and rear end log feed, one having the ordinary level of skill
in the art would have found it obvious to include in the
device of Sepling, auxiliary feed means, as taught by Hill and
Wehr.
After reviewing the collective teachings of Sepling and
Hill, and Sepling and Wehr, we, like appellants, are of the
view that the examiner has engaged in impermissible hindsight
reconstruction in attempting to modify the rotary drum
debarker and feed mechanism of Sepling in light of the
distinctly different log transporting and debarking apparatus
of either Hill or Wehr. In contrast to the rotary drum
debarker of Sepling wherein groups of logs are fed into the
rotary debarker (5), with movement of the trailing ends of the
logs accommodated within the fixed feed cylinder (3), which
allows rotation of the "tail ends" of the logs that project
from the drum into the feed cylinder without causing binding
or snapping off (col. 3, lines
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007