Ex Parte ANSTEY et al - Page 2




          Appeal No. 2002-1945                                                        
          Application 09/452,072                                                      


               8. In a net wrap material feeding mechanism for feeding                
          wrapping material to a baling chamber of a large round baler for            
          wrapping a bale formed there, the feeding mechanism including a             
          pair of feed rolls mounted in frictional engagement with each               
          other along respective lengths thereof for feeding wrap material            
          along a flight path extending perpendicular to a line of centers            
          of said pair of feed rolls and a wrap material stripper extending           
          parallel to and located adjacent at least one of said pair of               
          feed rolls, the improvement comprising: said wrap material                  
          stripper being in the form of a row of bristles.                            
                                   THE PRIOR ART                                      
               The items relied on by the examiner to support the final               
          rejection are:                                                              
          Anthony                  5,909,786               Jun. 8, 1999               
          The net wrap material feeding mechanism defined in the preamble             
          of claim 8 (the admitted prior art)1                                        
                                   THE REJECTION                                      
               Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being              
          unpatentable over the admitted prior art in view of Anthony.                
               Attention is directed to the brief (Paper No. 12) and answer           
          (Paper No. 13) for the respective positions of the appellants and           
          examiner regarding the merits of this rejection.                            





               1 As claim 8 is written in Jepson format, the subject matter           
          recited in its preamble is impliedly admitted to be old in the              
          art.  See 37 CFR § 1.75(e) and MPEP § 2129.  The appellants have            
          not challenged this implied admission for purposes of the appeal.           
                                                                                     
                                          2                                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007