Appeal No. 2002-2021 Page 10
Application No. 09/024,077
4, and the reference does not suggest otherwise. Moreover, the reference provides no
teaching that the horizontal springs are of such stiffness as to prevent the axis from
shifting from a generally horizontal position, and there logically would be no need for
such to be the case, inasmuch as the weight of the feeder means and its contents is
not supported by these springs. Thus, Semenov does not disclose or teach the
limitations in claim 1 that there be an interconnection mounting “consisting essentially
of” a resilient element, and a resilient element “of sufficient stiffness to prevent said axis
from shifting from a generally horizontal position.”
Musschoot was cited only for its teaching of using a particular type of eccentric
motion generator in devices such as that of Semenov. Be that as it may, Musschoot
fails to overcome the deficiencies pointed out above with regard to the teachings that
can be attributed to Semenov. Therefore, the references applied against claim 1 fail to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the subject matter recited
therein, and we will not sustain the Section 103 rejection of independent claim 1 and
dependent claims 2, 4 and 5.
Independent claim 11 stands rejected on the same basis. It requires that there
be a support assembly “consisting essentially of two spaced, horizontally disposed coil
springs.” For the reasons set forth above, we also will not sustain the Section 103
rejection of claim 11.
CONCLUSION
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007