Appeal No. 2001-2086
Application No. 09/012,152
The remaining arguments of appellants have been adequately
addressed by the examiner.
Considering the examiner's rejection of the appealed
claims under § 103 over Allbright or Litz in combination with
German '727 or German '824, we will adopt the examiner's
reasoning as set forth in the Answer. Whereas the German
references disclose conveying elements having lips with extended
vertical edges, as disclosed in the present specification but not
claimed, we find no error in the examiner's rationale that it
would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to
employ the conveying elements of the German references in the
apparatus of Allbright or Litz. Moreover, we find that the
subject matter defined by appealed claim 1 would have been
obvious over Litz, considered alone. We perceive no meaningful
distinction between the claimed conveying elements comprising a
wall-sweeping lip and conveying element 8 of Litz, nor between
the claimed additional conveying member and impeller 10 of Litz.
As a final point, we note that appellants base no argument
upon objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected
results.
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007