Appeal No. 98-3125
Application Nos. 08/294,730, 90/003,655, 90/003,826 and
90/004,552
cylinder (3) will include "a horizonal roller" positioned as
claimed by appellants, and drive means for said roller.
Accordingly, since claim 6 is readable on Sepling alone, we
will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 6 under 35
U.S.C.
§ 103, noting again that anticipation or lack of novelty is
the ultimate or epitome of obviousness.
With regard to dependent claim 9, we note that the
spacing requirement of this claim is not met by Sepling. As
for dependent claims 10 and 11, we note that Sepling has no
roller "having a smooth exterior surface" (claim 10), or a
roller constructed as specifically defined in claim 11 on
appeal. Nor does Sepling have a main chain conveyor means
having the particular construction set forth in claim 12 on
appeal and the claims which depend therefrom. Thus, the
examiner’s rejection of claims 9 through 14 and the rejection
of claim 15 on appeal will not be sustained.
18
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007