Appeal No. 2003-0588
Application 09/559,921
support wheel arrangement is mounted for engagement with the
ground during all conditions of operation of the wrapping
implement. The examiner concedes that the bale wrapping
implement of Anderson ‘076 does not have or disclose a frame
that can be pivoted vertically nor a support wheel arrange-
ment including only one support wheel of the type set forth
in claim 12 on appeal. In accounting for these differences,
the examiner concludes that
it would have been [an] obvious matter of
design choice to have modified Anderson’s
bale wrapping apparatus by having that
the frame can be pivoted vertically and
that the support wheel arrangement
including only one support wheel, since
applicant has not disclosed that the
frame can be pivoted vertically and that
the support wheel arrangement including
only one support wheel solves any stated
problem or is for any particular purpose
and it appears that the invention would
perform equally well with more than one
support wheel as suggested by Anderson
[final rejection, pages 2-3].
Rather than reiterate any further details of the
examiner's commentary regarding the above-noted rejection
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007