Appeal No. 2005-2752
Application No. 10/443,245
19 of the reference cannot be fairly said to constitute the
bottom of the hopper. We agree with appellants that “the damper
member 14 is not disposed on the ‘bottom’ of the hopper 12 [and
that] it can be seen that the hopper 12 of Kasai does have a
bottom, however this bottom is explicitly disclosed as inclining
‘downwardly from its upstream portion to its downstream portion
towards the flapper 13’ so as to explicitly teach away from the
Examiner’s interpretation that the damper member 14 can be
considered the ‘bottom’.” (Paragraph bridging pages 3 and 4 of
reply brief).
As for independent claim 9, the examiner has not
demonstrated that Kasai describes a single control that is
operatively associated with the hopper which is adapted to adjust
both the size of the hopper and the size of the hopper outlet in
order to accommodate casings of various size. The reference
description of wall 19 being movable to adjust the distance
L between the edge of flapper 13 does not meet the claim
requirement (see Kasai at column 6, lines 22-60).
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the examiner’s
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is reversed, whereas the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is sustained.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007