Appeal No. 1996-2802 Page 10
Application No. 08/140,142
the split portion along the grain. The teachings of Matthews,
McCan and Pfleumer have been described above. Gibbons is
directed to a crop wafering machine in which chopped fibers are
compressed into feed pellets for livestock by a screw acting in
concert with the friction encountered by the fibers as they are
being pushed through a cylindrical tube. Bonlie discloses a
rotary press comprising a pair of pocketed wheels for
compressing granulated charcoal into fuel pellets. The
reasoning of the examiner is expressed as “[h]aving the prior
art before him it would have been obvious to the artisan to
combine . . .” the references into a machine that meets the
terms of the claim. What has not been provided is a concise
explanation of the reasons why one of ordinary skill in the art
would have been motivated to modify the Matthews device by the
teachings in each of the other references so as to arrive at
the invention recited in claim 14. As with the rejection of
claim 1, it is our view that the only suggestion to combine the
references in the manner intended by the examiner resides in
hindsight, and therefore a prima facie case of obviousness has
not been established.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007