Appeal No. 2004-0241 Page 5
Application No. 09/773,366
133 USPQ 365, 372 (CCPA 1962). Applying this guidance of our reviewing court to the
situation at hand leads us to conclude that the evidence adduced by the examiner does
not support a rejection under Section 102. Our reasoning follows.
It is true that Schubert discloses a system in which gears in the drive mechanism
can be changed and brakes can be applied in order to alter the speeds of various drive
shafts (columns 1, 3 and 4). However, the examiner has not directed our attention to an
explicit teaching in Schubert of slowing the speed of the stock feeder mechanism during
stock feeding, as is required by all of the appellant’s claims. Nor does Schubert appear
to recognize the problem to which the appellant has directed his inventive efforts or, for
that matter, any other problem which would be solved by such operation of the stock
feeder. Even if the Schubert stock gear feeder system were capable of operating in
such a fashion as to slow the feeder mechanism during stock feeding, there appears to
be no disclosure or teaching of a machine controller (independent claim 1) or a brake
system (independent claim 16) which directs it to do so. This being the case, Schubert
does not anticipate the subject matter recited in independent apparatus claims 1 and
15, and we will not sustain the Section 102 rejection of claims 1, 2, 15 and 16.
The Rejections Under Section 103
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the prior art would
have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See, for example, In re Keller,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007