Appeal No. 2002-0472
Application No. 09/109,407
Cameron, applied in combination with Risser to reject
independent claims 1 and 17, discloses a cap feeding mechanism
comprising a cap hopper 6, a rotatable cylinder 14 for receiving
caps from the hopper, and an elongated delivery chute for
discharging caps from the cylinder. The delivery chute has an
arcuate portion 29, composed of a grooved plate 32 and a side
wall 33, and a straight portion 31.
The examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 17
rests on the following rationale:
[Risser’s] Rortary [sic] impeller 6 with blades 17
return misoriented articles from groove 13 within
chamber 1. The article being handled is immaterial
because the structures and functions are equivalent.
It would have been obvious to replace short chute 13 of
Risser with the longer groove chute 33 of Cameron. The
exit from the chute 33 is the gate port and chute 19 of
Risser or chute 31 of Cameron is a discharge passage
[final rejection, page 2].
This rejection is unsound for at least two reasons.
To begin with, there is nothing in the combined teachings of
Risser and Cameron which would have suggested the foregoing
combination. The examiner has not cogently explained, nor is it
even remotely apparent, why the artisan would have been motivated
to replace Risser’s notch 13 with the elongated delivery chute
disclosed by Cameron.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007