Appeal 2007-0062
Application 10/706,797
1 Applicants’ argument that the movement of the finger assemblies 64,
2 67 moving inwardly (laterally towards the hopper 28) and downwardly such
3 that the fingers 64, 67 extend into the bag 46 is not persuasive. Only inner
4 fingers 64 extend into the bag. Moreover, the motion of moving inwardly
5 towards the hopper (towards the bag) and downwardly does not result in
6 “grasping the opposed top edges of the bag with a pair of finger assemblies
7 that move inwardly and down to grasp the top edges of the bag.” It is only
8 until the inner fingers are moved outwardly towards the fixed fingers do the
9 fingers grasp the top edges of the bag.
10 For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 58.
11 We need not decide whether the rejection of claims 59 and 60, which depend
12 from claim 58, should be sustained on the basis that certain claim terms of
13 claims 59 and 60 lack written description support. Claims 59 and 60 stand
14 or fall together with claim 58, and in so much as claim 58 lacks written
15 descriptive support, so do claims 59 and 60. For these reasons, the
16 Examiner’s rejection of claims 58-60 is sustained.
17 102(a) rejection
18 The Examiner rejected claims 48-51 and 58-60 as being clearly
19 anticipated by Gates under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (Final Rejection 3 and Answer
20 4). Gates was published April 22, 2003 and the instant application was filed
21 November 12, 2003. The Examiner found that since Applicants do not have
22 written description support for the claim terms, the claims constitute new
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013