Appeal No. 1997-0417
Application 08/265,548
the issue on appeal before us is two-fold: whether or not it would have been obvious to the artisan to
have used plural sensor stations where each station corresponds to the individual mixture materials, and
whether or not it would have been obvious to the artisan to have used the detected moisture content
data to control material flow rates as opposed to a burner firing rate. We find that one of ordinary skill
in art, having only the applied reference to Adamski before him/her, would not have found it obvious to
employ plural sensor stations and corresponding conveyors to generate material flow rate signals for
use in controlling material flow rate. Thus, we cannot find that the claimed invention would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the teachings and suggestions of Adamski and in light
of the reasonable inferences, logical deductions, and common knowledge known to the artisan at the
time the invention was made.
The examiner asserts in the Answer (pages 3 and 4) that it would have been obvious to provide
plural sensor stations "in order to expand and increase product output because it is understood and well
known in the art that the demand for more product requires that the supply be increased to meet the
demand" (Answer, page 3), and "because the product being produced by Adamski includes more than
a single material" (Answer, page 6). The examiner also asserts in the Answer (page 4) that it would
have been obvious to vary material flow rate as opposed to burner firing rate in order to control the
material’s moisture content "because the time the material spends on the conveyor will be directly
proportional to the amount of moisture the material holds while being conveyed." We cannot agree
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007