Appeal No. 2005-2681
Application 10/156,328
chain conveyor 24, and that stop devices, that is, twine brakes, 70 are not between separating
means 74,80 and the bale forming chamber 22, but rather “[t]he twine separating arrangement
74,80 is located between a twine brake 70 and the baling chamber 22” as appellant argues (breif,
page 3).
Accordingly, in the absence of a prima facie case of anticipation, we reverse the ground
of rejection of appealed claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
We find that the ground of rejection of appealed claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
based on the same analysis and the examiner does not dispute appellant’s position that Glass
does not suggest a different arrangement of the subject elements of Naaktgeboren (brief, page 4).
Accordingly, we reverse this ground of rejection as well.
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007