Appeal No. 1999-1718
Application 08/786,742
Figure 3, are spaced from one another in a path clearing
direction. Williams, however, gives no indication as to the
magnitude of this spacing. Thus, as conceded by the examiner
(see pages 4,
8 through 10 and 16 in the answer), Williams does not meet the
limitation in independent claim 1 requiring “the forward reach
of one of said clearing disks being spaced between about 3 and
about 10 inches from the forward reach of the other of said
clearing disks in a direction along said path,” or the
substantively corresponding limitations in independent claims
11 and 16. The appellants explain in the underlying2
specification (see pages 2 and 6), and recite to some extent
in claims 11 and 16, that the specified spacing range
minimizes the possibility that the disks will interfere with
one another by engaging a single item of debris at the same
time which could cause the debris to remain in the path and/or
plug up the apparatus.
2 The examiner’s alternate position that “Williams et al.
as shown in figure 3, appears to show the forward reach of one
disk spaced about 3 inches from the forward reach of the other
disk” (answer, page 13) is completely unfounded.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007