Appeal No. 1997-0417
Application 08/265,548
controlling material flow on plural conveyors in response to detected moisture content and plural flow
rate signals was not recognized in the prior art. We agree with appellants (Brief, pages 4 to 6) that
Adamski only teaches that detected moisture content be used to control the firing rate of the burner.
We conclude that there would have been no motivation to modify Adamski to achieve the subject
matter of claims 18 to 26 on appeal.
Our close review of the Adamski reference reveals that only one conveyor 12 and sensor
station 10 is disclosed (see Figure 1 and the accompanying text). We find no reasonable teaching or
suggestion in Adamski which would lead the artisan to use multiple sensor stations and conveyors to
produce plural flow rate signals in order to control moisture content. It should be noted that the mere
fact that the prior art may be modified in the manner as suggested by the examiner does not make the
modification obvious unless the prior art suggested the desirability of the modification. In re Fritch, 972
F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Here, the examiner has
demonstrated no such suggestion stemming from the prior art.
Appellants argue (Brief, page 6) that "there is nothing to motivate one skilled in the art to
modify Adamski to arrive at the presently claimed invention." We agree, and find that such features are
neither taught nor would have been suggested by Adamski alone. The examiner has not set forth
sufficient reference teachings or suggestions for the modifications to Adamski. Accordingly, we find
that the examiner has failed to make a prima facie case that Adamski would have taught or suggested
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007