Ex Parte Slabbinck et al - Page 3



            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