Appeal No. 1999-1899 Page 8
Application No. 08/932,090
modifying Heyl in the manner suggested by the examiner.
Ruemelin's apparatus is for dust separation from a current of
air (page 1, line 4) into an inlet (13) (Fig. 1). In
contrast, Heyl's bag dump station (110) has a hopper (112) for
receiving particulate material from a container (column 1,
lines 19-20) which, as is apparent from Fig. 9, is open to
ambient air. The examiner's reason for modifying Heyl "so
that smaller airborne particles of the apparatus of Heyl are
discharged through at least one secondary inlet while larger
particles are discharged through a primary inlet" (answer,
page 5) would appear to provide no benefit over the structure
taught by Heyl. It is our opinion that the examiner's
rejection relies on impermissible hindsight and it would not
have been obvious to use Ruemelin's teaching of structure for
directing a current of dust-laden air in Heyl which receives
particulate material from a container.
However, we also disagree with the appellant's argument
teachings or suggestions of the inventor. See Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS
Importers Int'l, 73 F.3d 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ 2d 1237, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
(citing W. L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1551,
1553, 220 USPQ 303, 311, 312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851
(1984)).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007