Appeal 2007-1214
Application 10/272,270
The figure shows the spring described in the ‘497 application (id. at 4,
¶ [0012]). Thus, giving claim 3 its broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the Specification, we interpret its claim language to
encompass the coil springs described and depicted in the ‘497 application.
Figures 13 and 14 of Buckley depict coil springs having flattened (i.e.
straight) sides, and an overall coil configuration along the longitudinal axis
substantially similar to the straight sided coil springs in Figure 3 of the ‘497
application. We therefore agree with the Examiner that claim 3 reads on
Buckley’s springs.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3 as being obvious over
the prior art depicted in Appellants’ Figure 3 in view of Buckley.
4. OBVIOUSNESS -- CLAIMS 1-13
Claims 1-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the
vibratory conveying apparatus depicted in Figure 4 of the Specification,
admitted by Appellants as being prior art, in view of Buckley (Answer 3).
The Examiner finds that Figure 4 discloses all the limitations of claim
1, “except for the use of ovoid springs” (Final Rejection 2 (February 12,
2006)). To meet this deficiency, the Examiner notes that “Buckley teaches
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013