Appeal No. 1999-0547 Page 6
Application No. 08/615,790
vertically, that is, such that the hopper walls do not intercept such a portion of the weight of
the ingredients as to allow generation of the undesired perturbations by the auger. In this
regard, from our perspective not only is guidance provided in the specification for defining
“substantially vertically,” but McLeod represents the prior art over which the appellant
believes his invention to be an improvement, in that it is clear from Figure 6 that the extent
of the variation of the elongated tubular hoppers from the vertical results in the weight of the
ingredients flowing therethrough being applied against the sloping walls of the hopper
rather than against the auger. This is precisely what the appellant wishes not to do, and
provides the basis for our conclusion that elongated hoppers 134 and 136 of McLeod do
not extend “substantially vertically upward.”
Since all of the recited structure is not disclosed by McLeod expressly or under the
principles of inherency, the reference is not anticipatory and we will not sustain the
rejection of independent claim 1 or, it follows, of claims 2-4, 6, 7, 9 and 10, which depend
therefrom. We reach the same conclusion, for the same reasons, with regard to
independent claim 11 and dependent claims 12-15 and 17.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007