Appeal No. 2003-0588
Application 09/559,921
fully agree with appellant’s views as expressed on pages 3
and 4 of the brief, which positions we adopt as our own.
Like appellant, we do not see that the apparently large and
cumbersome bale wrapping machine of Anderson ‘076 is, or
would have been viewed by one of ordinary skill in the art
as being “adapted for being coupled in trailing relationship
to a baler,” as required in claim 12 on appeal. In that
regard, we note that Anderson ‘076 describes the multi-wheel
support arrangements seen in Figures 1-5 and 10 of that
patent as being “a machine mover 112 which enables the
machine 300 to move along a ground surface during the
wrapping operation of bales” (col. 2, lines 45-50). In
contrast to the examiner’s position, we see nothing in the
applied patent which discloses coupling of the bale
wrapping machine to a baler in trailing relationship
thereto, or in any way implies the capability to do so.
Nor do we see any reason why such an arrangement would have
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007