Appeal No. 2004-1088 Page 8
Application No. 09/805,202
cantilever fashion to the wheel assembly 46 not to the extendable conveyor section
110.
We reach the conclusion that there is no suggestion, teaching or motivation in
the combined teachings of Gilmore and McWilliams for a person of ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was made to have modified Gilmore to arrive at the subject
matter of claim 1. In that regard, it is our opinion that the teachings of McWilliams
would have suggested adding both the loader head 58 and the wheel assembly 46 to
Gilmore's extendable conveyor. However, that does not arrive at the subject matter of
claim 1 since Gilmore's conveyor would no longer be supported in a cantilever fashion
by the support structure. In our view, the only suggestion for modifying Gilmore to
arrive at the claimed invention stems from hindsight knowledge derived from the
appellants' own disclosure.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 1,
and claims 2 to 4, 10, 12, 56 to 59 and 61 to 82 dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007