Appeal No. 1999-1113
Application No. 08/888,354
OPINION
Turning first to the rejection of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we will not sustain
this rejection because the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness.
The examiner’s rejection, in toto, states that the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 “as obvious over the teachings of the Oetiker reference when extended to sensors
mounted on combines.”
It is true that Oetiker discloses a moisture sensor for grain and that the sensor
employs a capacitance sensing means positioned in a chamber for sensing the
capacitance of grain and providing a capacitance signal that can be related to grain
moisture. Oetiker also discloses a flow control means for controlling the flow of grain
through the chamber.
Even though the examiner provides no explanation of the rejection until the
response section of the answer, explaining that the functional behavior of the sensor is not
dependent on where it is mounted, in recognition of Oetiker’s failure to disclose an
agricultural combine, we might sustain the rejection if the recitation of the agricultural
combine were merely an intended use. However, independent claims 1 and 6 recite very
specific structure in the recitation of a “clean grain elevator” and that “clean grain
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007