Appeal No. 1999-0313 Page 7
Application No. 08/918,089
We sustain the rejection of claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. §
103.
The appellants have not contested the examiner's
determination that it would have been obvious to provide Brown
with a pug mill as suggested and taught by Reed's pug mill
122. The appellants only argue that such combination fails to
arrive at the claimed combination. Specifically, the
appellants argue (brief, pp. 5-6) that nothing in either Brown
or Reed "even remotely suggests that a single structural
component may be arranged to convey the material as well as
mix the material as the material is being conveyed."
The examiner responded to this argument (answer, p. 12)
by stating that Reed's pug mill 122 "receives paving
components received from conveyor 80, mixes them, and conveys
them to spreader box 136."
In our view, Reed's pug mill 122 clearly is a single
structural component which conveys the material as well as
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007