Appeal No. 2002-2047 Page 10
Application No. 09/348,400
the frame, and claim 30 adds to claim 28 moving the truck long at least one rail. It is
our opinion that this rejection fails for the same reasons as were advanced above in our
action on the like rejection of claim 1. Likewise, we will not sustain the rejection of
dependent claim 114, which adds to claim 28 the requirement that movement of the
truck be “both forward and reverse relative to the gripping device in the second
[adjacent] position,” which we do not find to be rendered obvious by the applied
references.
Independent claim 54 includes a movable carriage and means for connecting the
truck to the carriage and moving the carriage, features for which the examiner relied
upon Umeda. Since we have determined that Umeda is non-analogous art, the
rejection cannot be sustained on that basis. We also point out, however, that the claim
further requires “a conveyer comprising a shaft pivotally connected with the frame,” “a
nip formed with the conveyor,” and “means for oscillating the conveyor and the nip
about the shaft” (emphasis added). The common applicable definition of a “nip” is the
region of a squeezing or crushing device where the rolls or jaws are closest together.4
This being the case, while a nip is created when the pivotal action of Heinz’ conveyor
25 causes roller 27 to be placed in juxtaposition with roller 26, it is only conveyor 25 and
not the conveyor and the nip that oscillates about a shaft, as is required by this claim.
Thus, contrary to the examiner’s opinion, Heinz does not teach this feature.
4See, for example, Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, 1976, page 776.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007