Appeal No. 96-0425 Page 9
Application No. 08/108,986
so that the hoisting mechanism raises the stack (2) to the
correct top level in relation to the threshold construction.
Hognestad teaches (column 2, lines 28-32) that
the hoisting means comprises a stack-supporting hoist
table 4 which, e.g., may consist of a number of rollers
so that the stack in question can be advanced to the
correct position by means of a belt feeder (not shown).
Hognestad also teaches (column 5, lines 12-16) that
the apparatus may also be designed so that the stack with
the products in question is stationary, whereas the
gripper and the threshold means are moved downwards
concurrently with the product separation.
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 Hognestad and claim
1, it is our opinion that the only difference is the
limitation
means for moving a stack of products between said first
conveyor means and said supporting means simultaneously
with the controlled motion of the lowermost product of a
stack between said supporting means and said second
conveyor means.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007