Appeal No. 2003-0588
Application 09/559,921
been required in the apparently autonomous bale wrapping
machine of Anderson ‘076.
In addition, we see absolutely no basis to
conclude that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
found it to have been a mere matter of obvious design choice
1) to have a forward end of the frame in Anderson ‘076
“adapted for being coupled to a baler in such a way that it
[the frame of the bale wrapping implement] can be pivoted
vertically,” or 2) to provide the bale wrapping machine of
Anderson ‘076 with a support wheel arrangement “including
only one support wheel mounted for continuous engagement
with the ground during all conditions of operation of said
wrapping implement,” as recited in appellant’s claim 12.
The examiner’s comments in the final rejection and answer
with regard to these aspects of the rejection before us on
appeal are based on erroneous fact finding, hindsight,
speculation and conjecture.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007