Appeal No. 2000-2116 Page 8
Application No. 09/246,460
For these reasons, we conclude that the combined teachings of Tobias and Park
fail to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the subject matter recited
in independent claim 76, and we will not sustain the Section 103 rejection of this claim or
of claims 77-80, 82 and 83, which depend therefrom.
Independent claim 88 also contains the requirement that the feedgate be movable
to a closed position, and with regard to that limitation much of the reasoning set forth
above with regard to claim 76 also applies. In addition, claim 88 requires that there be a
lock mechanism “to fix said feedgate in at least one position between the closed position
and the fully open position.” Tobias discloses a threaded adjustment rod 50 that is
secured to the tailgate by a bracket 54. It is provided with a collar 51 which prevents
vertical downward movement of the shaft in the bracket, however, there appears to be no
mechanism that precludes upward movement, and therefore the feedgate is not lockable in
an intermediate position. Even if it were considered that Park teaches locking the tailgate
in an intermediate position, the examiner has provided no rationale for concluding that it
would have been obvious to so modify the Tobias apparatus.
The combined teachings of Tobias and Parker fail to establish a prima facie case
of obviousness with regard to the subject matter recited in claim 88. The Section 103
rejection of independent claim 88 and dependent claims 89-98 therefore is not sustained.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007