Appeal No. 2001-2086
Application No. 09/012,152
However, in accordance with the definition of the term "lip"
supplied by appellants (Webster's), we are satisfied that
Figures 2 and 3 of the original specification describe the
claimed conveying elements comprising a lip. It is well settled
that original drawings are part of the specification and can
provide descriptive support for terms not originally present in
the text of the specification.
We now turn to the examiner's rejection of the appealed
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the admitted prior art in view
of Allbright or Litz. We agree with the examiner's determination
that specification Figure 1, the admitted prior art, has
conveying elements, 3, which comprise the presently claimed
"wall-sweeping lip." Based on the dictionary definition
furnished by appellants, we find that the edge of element 3 of
specification Figure 1 qualifies as a lip. In our view,
element 3 of the admitted prior art has a projecting edge, or
lip, and also can be reasonably considered to serve as the edge
of a hollow cavity. Furthermore, although the admitted prior art
does not comprise the presently claimed additional conveying
member, we are in full agreement with the examiner that Allbright
or Litz would have provided the requisite motivation to
incorporate an additional conveying member on the axle of the
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007