Appeal No. 2002-2021 Page 4
Application No. 09/024,077
Claim 1
A vibratory feeder comprising:
a base;
means defining an elongated, generally horizontal feeding surface
spaced from said base;
a rotatably mounted eccentric journaled on said surface defining
means and operable, when rotated, to impact [sic, impart] vibration to said
surface; and
an interconnection mounting said surface defining means to said
base and consisting essentially of a resilient element having one end
connected to said surface defining means and an opposite end connected
to said base, said resilient element having said ends on a generally
horizontal axis and being of sufficient stiffness to prevent said axis from
shifting from a generally horizontal position.
(1)
Claims 1-7 have been rejected under the first paragraph of Section 112 on the
basis that the phrase “of sufficient stiffness to prevent said axis from shifting from a
generally horizontal position,” which appears in claim 1, contradicts the language in the
specification in lines 8 and 9 of page 12, which states that “substantial horizontal
displacement occurs.” We do not agree.
The appellant discusses the characteristics of coil springs on page 10 of the
specification, explaining that the “vertical spring rate” is the rate that comes into play in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007