Appeal No. 1999-1899 Page 15
Application No. 08/932,090
For the same reasons explained above with regard to the
examiner's proposed combination of Heyl and Ruemelin, we do
not find any teaching or suggestion in either Gueyrard or
Ruemelin for modifying Gueyrard's apparatus for receiving a
poured product by providing Ruemelin's apparatus for dust
separation from a current of air therein. For this reason, it
is our opinion that the modification proposed by the examiner
is based on impermissible hindsight and would not have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Nevertheless,
for reasons similar to those set forth above with regard to
Heyl, we find that Gueyrard teaches all of the limitations of
appellant's claim 1 and we will affirm the examiner's
rejection of claim 1 on this ground. Our affirmance of this
rejection is denominated a new ground of rejection under 37
CFR § 1.196(b) for reasons explained infra.
In accordance with 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (1995), we have
selected claim 1 as the representative claim from the
appellant's grouping (brief, page 10) of claims 1, 2 and 4
through 15 and decide the appeal on this rejection on the
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007