Appeal No. 1999-1763
Application No. 08/834,931
biomass. This is all that is required to meet the broad
limitations of appellant’s apparatus claim 1 and hence, we
conclude that claim 1 is anticipated by Price.
THE OBVIOUSNESS ISSUE
In rejecting claims 2 and 3, the examiner has taken the
position that it would have been obvious to increase the
thickness of Price’s biomass layer from 2 mm to between two
and eight inches so that one could process a larger quantity
of worms and their encompassing medium without having to
change the speed of the conveyor. The examiner further
explains that the larger gap (i.e., between the front edge of
the hopper and the conveyor belt) would permit a thicker
deposition of material on the belt.
Like appellant (brief, pages 5 and 6), we agree that
there is no teaching, suggestion or motivation found in the
Price reference to widen the gap between the front edge of the
hopper and the conveyor belt in order to achieve the claimed
biomass layer thicknesses recited in appellant’s claims 2 and
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007