Appeal No. 2002-1878
Application No. 09/246,257
reconstruction of appellant's claimed subject matter. Thus, the
combination of references cannot support a proper prima facie
case of obviousness.
Additionally, we find ourselves in agreement with appellant
that notwithstanding the disclosure in the abstract of Long, the
only baffle disclosed therein is baffle 36. The other identified
structure is side walls 28 and 32 and top wall 30. Furthermore,
there is no disclosure of baffle 36 causing longitudinal flow.
The air impinging thereon is apparently for the purpose of
flattening the strips in the conveyor and is directed downwardly.
Col. 5, lines 33-35.
The record reflects that the examiner has considered
possible double patenting with U.S. Patent No. 5,873,215. The
record does not reflect whether the examiner has considered the
issue of obviousness double patenting with respect to companion
Application No. 09/217,867, Appeal No. 2002-0675.
55
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007