Up-Right, Inc. v Chisholm-Ryder Company Inc
[1982] APO 39
•22 December 1982
In the Matter of the Patents Act 1952
‑ and ‑
In the Matter of Application No. 502599 for Letters Patent by UP‑RIGHT, INC.
‑ and ‑
In the Matter of Opposition thereto by CHISHOLM‑RYDER COMPANY INC.
DECISION OF A SUPERVISING EXAMINER OF PATENTS:
The application by Up‑Right, Inc., entitled "VINE FRUIT HARVESTING MACHINE WITH INCLINED‑TIP STRIKER RODS" was made on 8 June, 1976 and is a Convention application based upon US application 585103 made on 9 June, 1975.
Acceptance of the application was advertised in the A.O.J.P. on 2 August, 1979.
A notice of opposition in the name of CHISHOLM‑RYDER COMPANY INC., was lodged on 30 January, 1980, an extension of time for lodging such notice having been granted.
Following service of evidence‑in‑support and answer thereto, the opposition was heard in Canberra on 22 March, 1982.
Mr. J. Terry, patent attorney of Griffith, Hassel & Frazer, appeared for the applicant, and Mr. T. Collins, patent attorney of Phillips, Ormonde & Fitzpatrick appeared for the opponent.
The grounds of opposition mentioned in the notice were all those set out in paragraphs (a) to (i) of sub‑section 59(1) of the Act. However Mr. Collins, at the Hearing, indicated that only those grounds specified under
paragraphs (d), (e), (f), (g), (h) and (i) of sub‑section 59(1) would be relied upon, i.e. prior claiming, prior publication, manner of manufacture, obvious‑
ness, novelty and non‑compliance with section 40 of the Act.
The application is directed to a grape harvesting machine of the type having a mobile frame which in use straddles a row of grape vines and is provided with a plurality of oscillating vertical shafts each shaft having a plurality of generally horizontal striker rods each mounted at one end to its respective shaft. The arrangement is such that in use there is at least one support shaft on each side of the vine row. The support shafts oscillate to provide oscillatory motion to the striker rods so as to move their free ends towards and away from the vine row in order to beat and/or vibrate the vines and thus dislodge the fruit from the vines. The specification makes it clear that in prior art machines of this type the disposition of the support shafts in a direction transverse to the vine row can be adjusted. Similarly in the prior art machines the angle of oscillation of the striker rods is adjustable.
The specification directs attention, in the introductory pages, to theproblems of harvesting grapes close to the centre of the vines where, it is stated, the majority of the fruit on a vine grows. It indicates that, because of entanglement with the vines and cordon wires supporting the vines, the grapes "can only be removed completely by direct contact" and states, in the paragraph bridging pages 2 and 3, "a satisfactory harvesting of the fruit in the vine head or cordon area is therefore dependent on complete penetration of the (striker) rod into this area in an even and consistent manner".
The specification refers to prior machines with straight striker rods and to machines having oscillating paddles or panels some with "inwardly projecting hooks or other members". It is stated that such prior machines utilize a "narrow‑angle orientation" of the striker to the centreline of the vine and this results in:
(i)difficulty for the rod or paddle to penetrate the head of the vine with the consequence that fruit removal from the head of the vine is incomplete;
a substantial length of the rod striking sidewardly against the foliage of the vine and dislodging many leaves while striking and removing the grapes.
It is stated that the use of inwardly projecting hooks or other members fastened to the striker rods, paddles or panels in an attempt to provide better vine penetration results in the vine being raked, fruit macerated and excessive leaves removed and fragmented.
According to the specification even without inwardly projecting hooks or other members fastened to the straight rods or paddles the ends of the rods or paddles cut canes, leaves and fruit, causing vine damage, lowering fruit quality, and resulting in juice loss.
The specification goes on to say that in the prior art machines increasing the angle of the rods relative to the vine, i.e. increasing the spacing of the support shafts from the vine centre line, has been unsatisfactory for the following reasons:"As the oscillating rods are moved along the row by the harvesting machine the tips of the rods will penetrate and strike the vine at one point along its length. The rods will then be removed from the vine to penetrate the vine again, on the next cycle of oscillation at another point along the vine. With the same ground speed and same oscillation frequency, more of the vine will be skipped with a greater rod inclination and the amount of grapes left unharvested will increase. The amount of skipping can be reduced by reducing the ground speed of the harvester while using the same oscillation frequency. This, however, reduces the rate of harvest‑
bing production correspondingly. The amount of skipping can also be reduced without a reduction in ground speed by increasing the oscillation frequency. This too is disadvantageous since the kinetic energy of the striker rods varies as the square of their speed and even a small increase in speed of oscillatory movement beyond that necessary to pick the fruit will result in substantial damage to the vines and fruit and to the striker rods. Then again, the ground speed can be reduced and the oscillation frequency increased to reduce the degree of skipping. This too is dis‑
advantageous since the rate of harvest production will go down while the amount of damage increases."
The specification goes on to state:
"It is the principal object of this invention to overcome the above‑enumerated faults of present harvesting machines and provide a machine capable of successful harvesting on a commercial scale with widely spaced oscillating striker rod shafts and a large angle between the striker rods and the longitudinal centerline of the machine."
Having regard to what was said in the specification about the deficiencies in operating prior art machines with widely spaced shafts and with a large angle between the striker rods and the longitudinal centreline of the machine it seems to me that the words "successful harvesting" imply an ameloriation of those deficiencies.
Accordingly, in order to meet the promise of the invention a machine would need to be operable with a "large" angle between the striker rods and the longitudinal centreline of the machine and when so operated would need to be less susceptible than the described prior art machines to the deficiencies experienced when those prior machines have been operated with widely spaced shafts.
In the arrangements described as embodiments of the invention that promise is met by each striker rod being so configured that an appreciable length of the tip portion thereof is substantially parallel to the centreline of the machine when the rod, in its cycle of oscillation, is closest thereto. Two such configurations are described. In one of those the striker rod comprises a straight portion with a smoothly and shallowly curved tip portion extending rearwardly therefrom. In the other there is attached to a straight main portion of the rod a rearwardly extending tip portion which is straight through most of its length and which is set at an angle to the main portion.
The angle between the main portion and the straight tip portion is such that, with widely spaced oscillating shafts and a large angle between the main portion and the longitudinal centreline of the machine, the straight tip portion is substantially parallel to the longitudinal centreline of the machine when, in its cycle of oscillation, it is closest thereto. In both arrangements the rods are horizontally disposed.
With either of these configurations, because of the fact that an appreciable length of the tip portion of the rods is substantially parallel to the longitudinal centreline of the machine when, in their cycle of oscillation, they are closest thereto, the skip problem which arose when prior art machines were operated with widely spaced oscillating shafts is avoided.
The claims of the specification read as follows:1.In a grape‑harvesting machine having a frame adapted to straddle and move along a row of grape vines, a vertical striker rod support shaft carried by said frame at one side of the longitudinal centerline of said machine, an elongated striker rod mounted at one end thereof to said shaft for oscillation of said rod about said one end upon oscillation of said shaft about its vertical axis, said striker rod extending generally horizontally from said shaft and extending rearwardly of said machine and inwardly towards the longitudinal centreline of said machine and having an elongated tip portion at the end opposite from said one end thereof, and means for oscillating said shaft at a predetermined rate about its vertical axis and through a limited horizontal arc to move said tip portion to said longitudinal centerline of said machine and away therefrom during each cycle of oscillation of said shaft, the improvement comprising:
means preventing rotation of said rod about its longitudinal axis,
said rod being normally straight throughout the major portion of its length and said straight portion thereof being made of resilient material,
said elongated tip portion of said rod extending from said major portion thereof, said tip portion being generally horizontal and being inclined to said major portion at a horizontal angle on the side of said rod towards the longitudinal centerline of said machine equal to approixmately 180` plus the angle between said longitudinal centerline and said straight portion of said rod when said tip portion is at said longitudinal centerline.
2.The improvement as set forth in claim 1 wherein said tip portion is substantially heavier per unit of length than said major‑length straight portion.
3.The improvement as set forth in claim 1, wherein said straight portion of said striker rod comprises a solid fiberglass rod.
4.In a grape‑harvesting machine as set forth in claim 1, and wherein said machine includes means for moving said machine forwardly at a uniform speed such that said machine moves forwardly a predetermined distance during each full cycle of oscillation of said striker rod support shaft, the improvement further comprising:
said tip portion having a length substantially equal to said predetermined distance that said machine moves forwardly during a full cycle of oscillation of said striker rod support shaft.
5.The improvement as set forth in claim 1 wherein said inclined tip portion is smoothly curved from the end of said straight portion of said rod to the end of said tip portion.
6.The improvement as set forth in claim 1 wherein said inclined tip portion of said rod is straight throughout most of its length.
7.The improvement as set forth in claim 1 wherein said tip portion of said striker rod is substantially heavier per unit of length than said straight portion and wherein said major length portion of said striker rod comprises a solid fiberglass rod having sufficient resilience such that the degree of total arcuate travel of said tip portion during oscillation of said support shaft at said predetermined rate is substantially greater than the degree of said limited horizontal arc of oscillation of said shaft.
8.The improvement as set forth in claim 1 wherein said straight portion of said striker rod comprises a solid fiberglass rod, wherein said tip portion is substantially heavier per unit of length than said fiberglass rod and wherein said fiberglass rod has sufficient resilience such that the degree of total arcuate travel of said tip portion during oscillation of said support shaft when said predetermined rate of oscillation is about 350 cycles per minute is in the order of twice the degree of said limited horizontal arc of oscillation of said vertical support shaft.
9.The improvement as set forth in claim 8 wherein said tip portion is smoothly curved from the end of said straight portion of said rod to the end of said tip portion.
10. The improvement as set forth in claim 1 wherein the angle between said major‑length straight portion of said striker rod and said longitudinal centerline of said machine is substantially more than 15` when said tip portion is at said longitudinal centerline.
11. The improvement as set forth in claim 10 wherein said tip portion is substantially heavier per unit length than said major‑length straight portion of said striker rod and wherein said straight portion of said striker rod comprises a solid fiberglass rod having sufficient resilience such that the degree of total arcuate travel of said tip portion during oscillation of said support shaft at said predetermined rate is substantially greater than the degree of said limited horizontal arc of oscillation of said shaft.
Claim 1 is directed to an improvement in a grape harvesting machine such machine having, inter alia,:
.a vertical striker rod support shaft at one side of the centreline of the machine;
.an elongated striker rod mounted at one of its ends to the support shaft and having an elongated tip portion at its other end;
.means for oscillating the shaft at a predetermined rate about its vertical axis and through a limited horizontal arc to move the tip portion to the longitudinal centre‑
line of the machine and away therefrom during each cycle of oscillation of the shaft.
The striker rod is defined as extending generally horizontally from the shaft and extending rearwardly of the machine and inwardly towards the longitudinal centreline of the machine.
The improvement in such machine is defined as including:.means preventing rotation of the rod about it longitudinal axis;
.the rod being normally straight throughout the major portion of its length the straight portion being made of resilient material;
.the elongated tip portion of the rod extending from the major (straight) portion thereof, the tip portion being "generally horizontal" and being "inclined to said major portion at a horizontal angle on the side of said rod towards the longitudinal centerline of said machine equal to approximately 180` plus the angle between said longitudinal centerline and said straight portion of said rod when said tip portion is at said longitudinal centerline."
The characterization of the striker rod as extending "generally horizontally from said shaft" and of the tip portion as being "generally horizontal" require that the striker rod as a whole is horizontal or so close thereto that any deviation from the horizontal would be functionally insignificant.
The "straight portion" of the rod referred to in the claim is simply the "major portion" from which the "tip portion" extends. The claim does not state explicitly whether the tip portion is also straight. At the hearing Mr. Terry argued that the word "inclined" does not require the tip portion of the rod to be disposed at any particular angle to the "major portion" and therefore does not preclude the tip portion being curved.
It is true that the word "inclined" does not by itself require the tip portion to be disposed at a particular angle. However, the claim does not simply require that the tip portion be "inclined" but goes on to define a particular angle of inclination of the tip portion relative to the major (straight) rod portion. The claim requires that angle, as measured on the side of the rod which is toward the longitudinal centerline of the machine, to exceed 180` by approximately the angle which the straight (major) portion of the rod makes with the longitudinal centerline of the machine when the tip portion is at the longitudinal centerline.
An argument put forward by Mr. Terry, as I understand it, was that a curved tip portion could be considered as a series of short nominally straight sections and that in view of the word "approximately" in the expression "said tip portion ... being inclined to said major portion at a horizontal angle ... equal to approximately 180` plus the angle ..." the claim included an arrangement whereby the tip portion is curved with a part of its length being inclined at the defined approximate angle in the sense that each of the short nominally straight sections making up that part are inclined to the major portion of the rod at approximately the defined angle.
However, the claim defines the whole tip portion, not just a part thereof, as being at the inclined angle and clearly if the tip portion was curved all parts of it could not approximate the defined angle. For example if the tip portion was curved, then the part of it directly adjacent the major (straight) portion (from which the tip portion is defined as extending) would not be inclined to the major portion at an angle approximating that between the major portion and the centreline of the machine when the tip portion is located thereat.
Accordingly I am unable to accept Mr. Terry's view. To my mind the claim requires the tip portion as a whole to be inclined to the major portion at a particular angle. The word "approximately" in the claim, rather than allowing for variation of the inclination of successive sections of the tip portion permits the particular angle of inclination of the tip portion to be not exactly 180` "plus the angle between said longitudinal centerline and said straight portion of said rod when said tip portion is at said longitudinal centerline" but close thereto. In consequence the claim requires that the tip portion of the striker rod be substantially straight.
A geometrical consequence of the angle of inclination of the tip portion to the major (straight) portion exceeding 180` by the angle between the longitudinal centerline and the straight portion when the tip portion is at the longitudinal centerline of the machine is that the tip portion, when at that location, is parallel to the longitudinal centerline of the machine.
There is nothing in claim 1 which requires that the machine defined therein is operable with a "large" angle between the striker rod and the longitudinal centerline of the machine. Accordingly the claim fails to define the invention described, and the specification as a consequence does not comply with section 40.
The specification does not comply with section 40 for the further reason that claim 5 is unclear. The claim purports to define "the improvement as set forth in claim 1". In view of my interpretation of claim 1 that would require that the tip portion of the striker rod was straight. However claim 5 goes on to state that the tip portion is "smoothly curved from the end of said straight portion of said rod to the end of said tip portion". Claim 9 is similarly unclear.
Claim 10 is unclear in requiring the angle between the major‑length straight portion of the striker rod and the longitudinal centreline of the machine to be "substantially more than 15` when ...". As a quantitative term the word "substantially" is indefinite.
The evidence‑in‑support comprises a declaration by Robert L. Holloway, Director of Engineering of Chisholm‑Ryder Company, Inc., New York, USA, the opponent company. In paragraph 2 of his declaration Mr. Holloway deposes:"My company manufactures machinery for use in the harvesting and processing of goods and exports such machines to a large number of countries including Australia. In particular, my company exports to Australia grape harvesting machines and has done so since 1969."
Although there is no indication that Mr. Holloway has ever visited Australia he goes on to depose in paragraph 3 of his declaration:
"I believe that I am well acquainted with developments in mechanised grape harvesters and usually have early knowledge of any development wherever that may occur throughout the world. ... In particular, I believe that I was well aware of the state of the grape harvesting industry in Australia as it existed on 9 June 1975."
Exhibited to the Holloway declaration are Australian patent specific‑
ation 472717 to Chisholm‑Ryder co. Inc. and United States specifications 3439482 to Orton and 3688482 to Horn. I am satisfied that each of these specifications was available to the public in Australia before the priority date of the claims of the opposed specification. Each of the earlier specifications discloses a grape harvesting machine of the type defined in the initial part of claim 1, i.e. in the portion of the claim prior to the words "the improvement comprising". However, neither Orton nor Horn discloses striker rods which are other than straight throughout their length and accord‑
ingly, neither of these two specifications anticipate the presently claimed invention.
The Chisholm‑Ryder specification discloses the use of striker rods each of which is straight throughout the major portion of its length. A second straight portion at the free end of the rod is illustrated in the various figures as being inclined to the major portion by virtue of a bend in the rod some three‑quarters of the way along its length.
In use the major portion of the rod in the machine described in the Chisholm‑Ryder specification is horizontally disposed. The fixed end of the rod is retained in a clamp which may be loosened so that the rod can be rotated about the longitudinal axis of the major portion to vary the orientation of the angled tip portion relative to the longitudinal centreline of the machine. In use the clamp prevents rotation of the rod about its longitudinal axis.
Various dispositions of the angled tip portions of the striker rods are illustrated. Of particular relevance is the arrangement illustrated in Figures 12, 13 and 14 where the entire rod is horizontally disposed with the straight tip portion being inclined away from the centreline of the machine. With the arrangement shown in those figures it is clear that, as the striker rod moves through its cycle of oscillation, the angular disposition of the tip portion relative to the longitudinal centreline of the machine will vary. It is also clear from the geometry of the illustrated arrangement that the straight tip portion in the cycle of oscillation of the rod will never approximate a direction parallel to the longitudinal centreline of the machine. It will always be outwardly inclined to the machine centreline, even when, in its cycle of operation it is closest thereto. Thus the Chisholm‑Ryder specification does not disclose a straight tip portion which is inclined to the major portion "at a horizontal angle on the side of the said rod towards the longitudinal centreline of said machine equal to approximately 180` plus the angle between said longitudinal centerline and said straight portion of said rod when said tip portion is at said longitudinal centerline" as in claim 1 of the opposed specification. Accordingly the Chisholm‑Ryder specification fails to prior publish the invention of claim 1.
However, at the hearing Mr. Collins argued that the invention defined in claim 1, even if construed to require the tip portion to be straight ‑ as I have done ‑ is not novel in the light of the Chisholm‑Ryder specification. He submitted that the parallelism of the tip portion of the striker rod to the centreline of the machine when the tip portion is located thereat, which is a consequence of the angular relationship defined in the last few lines of the claim, does not contribute to the performance of the claimed arrangement vis‑a‑vis the performance of the machine disclosed in the Chisholm‑Ryder specification.
The Holloway declaration has something to say on this point. In paragraph 18 of his declaration Mr. Holloway deposes:"I know of no advantage, and in fact believe there is none, in having a straight tip portion which is parallel to the machine centerline. An advantage may be derived from the use of an inclined tip portion as explained in Exhibit RLH2, but the particular angular relationship as called for at the end of the claim 1 of the Up‑Right specification has absolutely no practical significance."
Exhibit RLH2 referred to in that passage is the Chisholm‑Ryder specification.
The point is also addressed in a declaration of Darrell c. Horn lodged as evidence‑in‑answer. Mr. Horn declares that he is Vice President and General Manager of North American Operations of the Applicant company and that he is familiar with the principles involved in the mechanical harvesting of grapes and in the operation of the harvesting machines made by his company. At paragraph 7 of his declaration Mr. Horn declares:
"... there is a very distinct advantage in that it provides a substantial length of the tip which will strike against the vine and fruit thereon lengthwise of the row, to provide full harvesting coverage with a minimum of skip‑zones. By substantial length, I mean that the tip will have a length approximately that in which the machine will travel along the row in one cycle of striker rod operation. This is generally illustrated in Figs 4‑6 of the present application. For a machine travelling at 1‑1/4 miles per hour and operating at 350 cycles per minute, the machine will travel about 3.8 inches. If the inclined portion of the tip is in the order of 4 inches in length, then there will be a slight overlap and full coverage of the vine will be provided. Substantially the same beneficial result is obtained if the rods have a curved tip instead of a straight inclined tip, in that the rods will have a substantial length of the curved tip which is very closely adjacent to the center line of the vine row when the striker rod has moved inwardly."
Now Mr. Holloway in deposing that there is no advantage in having a straight tip portion which is parallel to the machine centreline when located thereat does not address the skip problem. That being so, and having regard to the fact that no evidence‑in‑reply has been lodged to counter the view expressed by Mr. Horn I accept that the advantage referred to in paragraph 7 of the Horn declaration does in fact arise. However, it is significant that, according to Mr. Horn, the advantage arises not just through the tip portion being straight and parallel to the machine centreline when located thereat; an additional requirement for the advantage to arise is that the straight tip portion be of a length approximately that in which the machine will travel along the row in one cycle of striker rod operation. It is also significant that, according to Mr. Horn, the same beneficial result is obtained if the rods have a curved tip of sufficient length.
There is nothing in claim 1 relating the length of the straight portion to the distance which the machine moves along a row as the rod executes a cycle of operation. In fact the claim is entirely silent regarding the length of the tip portion and includes within its scope an arrangement wherein the straight tip portion is no longer than the curved rod portion joining the two straight portions of the striker rod illustrated in Figures 12 to 14 of the Chisholm‑Ryder specification. In that event the arrangement claimed would be no more effective in terms of skip avoidance than the arrangement illustrated in the Chisholm‑Ryder specification.
Since claim 1 includes an arrangement differing from the arrangement disclosed in the Chisholm‑ryder specification only in a respect which makes no substantial contribution to the working of the defined arrangement the invention as claimed in the claim is not novel [Griffin v. Isaacs AOJP (1942) p.739 at 740].
Claim 2 which is appended to claim 1 requires that the tip portion of the striker rod be substantially heavier per unit of length than the major‑
length straight portion. The evidence establishes that when this feature is present in a rod of sufficient resilience the horizontal arc covered by the rod tip in operation will exceed the angular movement of the rod support shaft. The evidence also establishes that certain advantages arise with such combination of features such as the provision of more room for the vines to pass between the striker rods and a reduction in the shock loading on the actuating mechanism.
Whilst, by virtue of its appendancy to claim 1, claim 2 defines a striker rod of resilient material there is no requirement that the rod be sufficiently resilient to ensure the results referred to above. Accordingly the requirement in claim 2 that the tip portion be substantially heavier per unit length than the major‑length straight portion does not confer novelty over the arrangement disclosed in the Chisholm‑Ryder specification even though that specification does not disclose striker rods with tip portions which are heavy relative to the remaining portions.
Each of claims 7 to 9 and 11 require the tip portion to be substantially heavier per unit length than the major‑length straight portion and also require the major‑length portion of the striker rod to be of sufficient resilience that in operation the arcuate travel of the tip portion is substantially greater than the limited horizontal arc of oscillation of the support shaft. In view of the functional significance of that combination of features I find that each of claims 7 to 9 and 11 is novel over the Chisholm‑
Ryder specification.
Claims 3 and 6 which are each appended to claim 1 add features explicitly disclosed in the Chisholm‑Ryder specification. Accordingly those claims are not novel.
Claim 4, which is appended to claim 1, requires that the tip portion of the striker rod have "a length substantially equal to said predetermined distance that said machine moves forwardly during a full cycle of oscillation of said striker rod support shaft". In view of the skip avoidance advantage consequent upon that characteristic I find claim 4 to be novel over the Chisholm‑Ryder disclosure.
In view of the fact that I am unable to place a definite meaning on claim 5 I make no finding on the novelty or otherwise of that claim. I make the observation, however, that the mere provision of a striker rod having a curved tip portion in a grape‑harvesting machine of the type referred to in the portion of claim 1 preceding the words "the improvement comprising" would not confer novelty over the arrangement disclosed in Figures 12‑14 of the Chisholm‑
Ryder specification. The position would be different, of course, if there was an additional requirement concerning the length of the curved tip portion such that amelioration of the skip problem was ensured.
In regard to prior claiming Mr. Collins conceded that if claim 1 was limited to the rod tip being straight there would be no prior claiming. I agree with that view and, having regard to the interpretation I have placed on claim 1, I find that the ground of prior claiming has not been established.
I turn now to consider the ground of obviousness. At the hearing Mr. Collins submitted that the type of machine defined in the portion of claim 1 prior to the words "the improvement comprising" was, at the priority date of the claim, common general knowledge in Australia. Mr. Terry, on the other hand, argued that the evidence falls short of establishing that.
It is unnecessary for me to determine that issue since, even if I was to conclude that the machines defined in the initial part of claim 1 were common general knowledge in Australia at the relevant date, there is no evidence to suggest that the use of striker rods having angled tip portions was common general knowledge in Australia or that as a matter of routine a man skilled in the art would, at the relevant date have employed striker rods with angled tip portions.
In the circumstances the ground of obviousness has not been made out.
Mr. Collins submitted that claim 4 was not directed to a manner of manufacture. Since claim 4 is appended to claim 1 and since claim 1 is clearly directed to a manner of manufacture Mr. Collins presumably meant that the matter added by the wording of claim 4 does not amount to a manner of manufacture. His argument was that the relationship defined in the claim between the length of the striker rod tip portion and the distance that the machine moves forwardly during a full cycle of oscillation of the striker rod support shaft is tantamount to instructions to the machine operator to adjust the machine to attain that relationship.
I am unable to agree with that view. To my mind claim 4, in referring to the relationship between striker rod tip length and machine movement is simply claiming by result and the effect of the wording of the claim is to add a functionally significant limitation to the arrangement defined in claim 1.
I have found that the specification does not comply with section 40 of the Act and that the invention as claimed in claims 1, 2, 3 and 6 is not novel.
As I believe that the specification could be amended to overcome those grounds I shall give the Applicant 60 days from the date of this decision to request amendment.
(W.S. PATTERSON)
0
0
0