Appeal No. 2002-2021 Page 6
Application No. 09/024,077
It therefore is our conclusion that no inconsistency is present between the
description of the invention set forth in the specification and the manner in which the
invention is recited in claim 1, and this rejection will not be sustained.
(2)
Claims 6, 7 and 14 also are rejected under the first paragraph of Section 112 on
the basis that the specification fails to disclose how the “balance bar” can balance the
vibration of the device. On pages 13-15 of the specification the embodiment of Figures
5-7 is described as having two balance bars 108 attached to the depending pedestals
that support the feeding surface, which balance bars counterbalance the vibration
produced in the feeding surface by the eccentric weight system. According to the
appellant, this results in very little vibration in the horizontal direction being passed to
the vertically oriented isolation springs 116, which support the pedestals on the floor or
ground. The examiner has not explained why the description is deficient, except to
conclude that the claim is broader than the supporting disclosure (Answer, page 5), a
conclusion with which we do not agree. From our perspective, the disclosure is quite
adequate, and it is our opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
enabled by the specification to make and use the embodiments of the invention in
which the balance bars are present.
This rejection is not sustained.
(3)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007