Appeal No. 96-0425 Page 10
Application No. 08/108,986
With regard to this difference, the examiner determined
(answer, p. 3) that
[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time the invention was made to have used a
stationary first conveyor and stack and movable threshold
means 14 and transport 7 which deliver separate articles
to a second conveyor in the device of Hognestad et al.,
since the reference specifically suggests such a
modification.
We agree. The examiner then went on and determined (answer,
pp. 3-4) that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily
ascertained the constructional arrangement necessary for
the device to operate in the manner described in the
reference, including coordination of movement of the belt
feeder to provide a new stack with the removal of the
last article of a previous stack.
We do not agree.
We agree with the appellants' argument (brief, pp. 7-8)
that Hognestad does not teach or suggest "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
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007