Appeal No. 1999-1718
Application 08/786,742
of clearing disks in a debris clearing apparatus of the type
claimed to be a result-effective variable bearing on the
performance of the apparatus, with the about 3 to about 10
inch range specified in the claims minimizing the possibility
of operative interference between the disks. There is nothing
in Williams, considered alone or in any combination with
White, Carney and/or Groff, which demonstrates that this
recognition was shared by the prior art. In other words, the
applied references do not establish that the spacing between
the forward reaches of a pair of clearing disks in a debris
clearing apparatus of the type claimed was an art-recognized
result-effective variable. This fact situation falls into one
of the exceptions to the general rule established by Aller,
and it matters not that the record is lacking in proof that
the claimed spacing range is critical or provides new and
unexpected results.
Thus, the applied references fail to justify the
examiner’s conclusion that the differences between the subject
matter recited in independent claims 1, 11 and 16, and in
dependent claims 2 through 9, 12 through 14, 17 through 19 and
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007