Appeal 2007-1787
Application 10/742,187
dispensing of an aggregate (Answer 4). Further, Appellants admit that Bounds
teaches a hopper door and actuator as claimed (Appeal Br. 5). Therefore, the
combination of Bounds and Anderson when taken as a whole teaches a hopper
door and actuator as claimed. Second, although Anderson states spinner spreader
machines as illustrated in Fig. 1 of Anderson are “inadequate to achieve the desired
product dispensing rates and spreading patterns” (Anderson, col. 5, ll. 29-42),
Appellants’ conclusion that the inadequacy of the prior art machines is due solely
to the use of gates or doors is not supported by the disclosure of Anderson. Rather,
Anderson suggests that the use of its automated funnel positioning system
overcomes the limitations of known manually adjustable spinner spreader system
(Anderson, col. 5, l. 29 to col. 6, l. 6 of Anderson).
Finally, Appellants contend that “Anderson does not and cannot open and
close a hopper door or anything else” (Reply Br. 4). We disagree.
Anderson specifically discloses that the control system 502 can be adapted
to reposition the funnel apparatus 200 by controlling the movement of the linear
actuator arm 204 (Finding of Fact 12). Bounds discloses that the opening and
closing of the hopper doors are controlled by a solenoid controller 215 that is
programmed to selectively provide electrical control signals to the valve control
solenoids 203-212 (Finding of Fact 7). Bounds further discloses the use of a
remote control system to generate the electronic signals needed to control the
hopper doors (Finding of Fact 7-8). Therefore it would have been within the
capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the GPS-based control
system of Anderson to replace the remote control system of Bounds for controlling
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013