Appeal 2007-1719
Application 10/655,483
a link secured at one end to the platform and at its other
end to the crop divider;
(B) pivoting the link relative to the cutting platform about
a first axis; and
(C) pivoting the divider relative to the link about a
second axis which is inclined relative to the first axis.
THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Henry, Sr. US 4,219,992 Sep. 2, 1980
Greiner US 4,333,304 Jun. 8, 1982
Hurlburt US 5,865,019 Feb. 2, 1999
The Appellants seek our review of the rejection of claims 1-6, 9-14, and
16-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Greiner in combination with
Hurlburt or Henry.
ISSUE
The Appellants contend that Greiner “does not teach or suggest any crop
divider or other structure that can be pivoted between a forward projecting
operating position and a retracted transport position, as claimed” (Appeal Br. 5).
The Examiner found that Greiner has a crop divider or guide apparatus and that
due to the width and height adjustment of the divider (guide means 38), a narrower
configuration of the divider is accommodated, so that the combine is capable of
being transported (Answer 8-9).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013