Appeal No. 1999-0313 Page 13
Application No. 08/918,089
Claim 54 requires the feed augers to be "disposed within
said hopper" and to define "a remixing zone therebetween
wherein the material is desegregated laterally relative to the
path as the material is conveyed by said augers." However,
these limitations are not suggested by the applied prior art.
In that regard, while Reed does teach feed augers having the
recited mixing zone, the augers are not disposed within the
hopper. Similarly, while Gerard does teach feed augers
disposed within the hopper, the augers do not have the recited
mixing zone. It is our view that while Gerard may have
suggested replacing Brown's slat conveyors with auger
conveyors as taught by Gerard, the applied prior art would not
have further suggested modifying those augers to define "a
remixing zone therebetween wherein the material is
desegregated laterally relative to the path as the material is
conveyed by said augers." In our view, the only suggestion
for modifying the applied prior art in the manner proposed by
the examiner to meet the above-noted limitations stems from
the use of impermissible hindsight. It follows that the
decision of the examiner to reject claim 54 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is reversed.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007