Appeal No. 1997-4441
Application 08/370,095
transversely extending pin 24 in Brook could be compared to
the flange of a product, we think that comparison and, thus,
the combination, can only be derived using hindsight. Because
we find no motivation for the combination, the rejection of
claims 1, 3-7, and 9 is reversed. Nevertheless, we also
address the arguments as to the length limitation.
Appellant further argues that the references fail to
teach or suggest the limitation concerning weigh pan length
(Br12):
Born et al lacks weighing means, and thus is silent as to
weigh pan length. In Brook, the weigh pan 18 is not
designed to correspond essentially to the length of the
products because the length of poultry carcasses, by
nature, varies from carcass to carcass. The length of
weigh pan 18, and its relationship to carcass length in
the direction of travel, is neither discussed nor shown
in the drawing figures.
The Examiner states that "the limitation in the claims of
the present application that the length of the weigh pan is
based on a length of an unspecified product with an
unspecified length, is so vague it is meaningless in the
patentable sense" (EA6). As discussed in connection with the
§ 112, second paragraph, rejection, we consider the length
limitation broad, not indefinite. Thus, the Examiner errs to
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007