Appeal No. 2004-1088 Page 5
Application No. 09/805,202
frame forward end and arranged for close control by an operator standing adjacent to
same and monitoring progress of the individual bags being handled across the
conveyors. Figures 3 and 4 illustrate a telescoping conveyor 40A comprising a series of
conveyor section 110, 112 and 114; a wheel assembly 46 applied to the forward end of
conveyor section 110; and a loader head 58. The loader head 58 is mounted to the
wheel assembly 46 in a cantilever fashion for lateral and vertical swinging or swivelling
movement, with the loader head 58 being swung vertically by power operated piston
and cylinder device 60, and the loader head 58 being swung horizontally by power
operated piston and cylinder device 62 (see Figure 6).
In the rejection of claim 1 based on McWilliams and Weir (answer, p. 4), the
examiner (1) ascertained1 that McWilliams does not show that the extendable conveyor
section is cantilevered from the base; (2) determined that Weir shows a cantilevered
conveyor; and (3) concluded that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to modify the conveyor of McWilliams by making it cantilevered as taught by
Weir.
1 After the scope and content of the prior art are determined, the differences between the prior art
and the claims at issue are to be ascertained. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ
459, 467 (1966).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007