Appeal No. 2004-2235
Application No. 09/195,005
run the insertion drive at the appropriate time when a void
approaches on the loop [i.e., the oval track]. Therefore the
friction drive must run continuously and cause the previously
mentioned feed problem” (answer, page 3).
Third, the examiner maintains that “there is no disclosure
for a control system to operate the switches 27 at the correct
time to divert the correct wagon and the correct roller 8 of said
wagon to avoid wagon removal errors” (answer, pages 3 and 4).
Taking these points in the order presented, it is noted that
the claims involved in the instant appeal differ from those at
issue in the earlier appeal. The earlier claims did not refer to
a “first guide roller” or a “second guide roller” as does current
claim 7. As the underlying specification provides a clear and
straightforward description of these elements, a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have readily understood their
structure and function within the context of the claimed
invention. The recitation of the “coupling elements” in current
claim 7 is much more detailed than that of the “coupling element”
in the earlier claims and also would have been readily understood
by a person of ordinary skill in the art within the context of
the claimed invention. Although the recitation of the “carrier
cages” in current claim 7 arguably is problematic for the reasons
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007