Appeal No. 1998-1298
Application 08/544,962
forces therebetween (Figs. 2 through 6). In particular,
Foster ‘686 discloses a floor member bearing construction 16
mounted upon a longitudinal guide tube or beam 12 supported
upon cross frame members 14 that allows a floor member 10 to
be snapped in place (Figs. 8 and 10).
As we see it, one having ordinary skill in the art would
have readily appreciated each of the respective conveyor
arrangements of Goodman, Moser, Dreffein, and Abraham,
relative to the reciprocating floor conveyor of Foster ‘686,
as clearly being a distinctly different conveyor type. As
such, we determine that the applied references themselves,
absent appellants’ own teaching, would not have been
suggestive of altering any of the conveyor arrangements of
Goodman, Moser, Dreffein, and Abraham by the selective
addition of a longitudinal bar arrangement from a distinctly
different type of conveyor. Thus, the proposed addition of2
longitudinal bars and bearings for the conveyors of each of
2The rejection specifies that it would have been obvious
to “add” longitudinal bars, while in “Issue 1" in the response
to the Remand (Paper No. 27), the examiner discusses an
obvious “replacement”.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007