Appeal No. 2004-0942 Page 6
Application No. 08/718,573
instruction to add weight to discharge member 14 “for deeper penetration of the
discharge member into the soil during operation” (column 5, lines 45-47) which,
interestingly, is provided in the context of insuring that the discharge member (14)
remain “adjacent” the soil during operation (column 5, lines 43-45).
We therefore find ourselves in agreement with the appellants arguments in the
Briefs that the rejection is not well taken, for it is our view that the teachings of
Cousineau do not establish a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the subject
matter recited in claim 36. This being the case, we will not sustain the rejection of
independent claim 36 or, it follows, of claims 37-41, which depend therefrom.
CONCLUSION
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007