Appeal No. 2002-0894
Application No. 09/283,650
which applicant regards as the invention” (answer, page 3).
Claims 21-26, 28-31 and 33-40 stand further rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Neyland.
Reference is made to appellant’s main and reply briefs
(Paper Nos. 12 and 15) and to the final rejection and examiner’s
answer (Paper Nos. 8 and 13) for the respective positions of
appellant and the examiner regarding the merits of these
rejections.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, rejection
We will not sustain the standing rejection of the appealed
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
The examiner’s rationale for this rejection is set forth on
page 3 of the answer as follows:
. . . it is not understood how the ejector’s degree of
tilting is regulated because no means (guides, etc.) to
mount the ejector have been set forth; also, in line
with the above, it is not understood how the a mount
[sic, amount] of tilting is controlled in order that
the ejector not gauge the floor and stall the ejector.
Further, it is not understood how the connection
between the actuator and ejector is made - in other
words, is the connection a pivot, a weld or what?
Lastly, it is not understood if the ejector attachment
to the actuator is made at the ejector’s height mid-
point, at a point higher than a midpoint, etc. in order
to achieve the tilting.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007