Appeal No. 98-2152
Application No. 08/638,429
either explicitly or inherently. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d
1473,
1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and Hazani v.
Int’l Trade Comm’n, 126 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1358, 1361
(Fed. Cir. 1997).
With respect to construction #2, the examiner has
identified the elements 31, 40 and 41 as corresponding to the
claimed hold-downer. We must point out, however, that
independent claim 5 expressly requires that the hold-downer be
"disposed above the feeding table" and independent claim 16
specifies that the hold-downer have a hold-down member
disposed "a spaced distance from the feeding table." Although
the spring guide 40 and the adjusting plate 41 of Bakke
satisfy these limitations, stop plate 31 does not. That is,
Bakke expressly states that the stop plate 31 is biased toward
the table in such a matter that the lower corners 39 thereof
"rest on the feed table 14" (page 2, lines 23-50).
Moreover, we cannot agree with the examiner that the
springs 35 (in conjunction with lugs 36 and 37) of Bakke can
be fairly considered to provide "an adjustable spring force"
(independent claim 5) or a "means for adjusting a spring
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007