Appeal No. 2004-0906
Application No. 09/571,896
and by the examiner’s finding that the separate counterweight guide
rail (9) is supported by and adjacent the single wall of the silo
(Answer, page 3).
Appellants further argue that there is nothing in Bumgarner
to suggest that the rails 2,9 support the beam 4 (Brief, page 10;
Reply Brief, page 4). Appellants assert that the disclosure by
Bumgarner that the rails 2,9 can be either cables or bars supports
the conclusion that the beam supports the “rails” rather than the
converse (id.). This argument is not persuasive since, as noted by
the examiner (Answer, paragraph bridging pages 5-6), the beam 4 of
Bumgarner extends beyond the side of the silo and is attached at
its end to the bars 2, with the bars 2 supported at member 14, and
therefore the beam is at least partially supported by the bars or
rails 2 as required by claim 7 on appeal.
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, we
determine that the examiner has established a prima facie case of
anticipation which has not been adequately rebutted by appellants.
Therefore we affirm the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-7
and 9 under section 102(b) over Bumgarner.
We also adopt the examiner’s findings from Crispen (Answer,
pages 3-4). Appellants argue that Crispen discloses a single
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007