Appeal No. 97-0576
Application No. 08/308,876
Rather than reiterate the examiner's statement of the
above rejections and the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the
examiner and the appellants, we refer to pages 3 through 10 of
the examiner's answer, to the supplemental answer, to pages 6
through 18 of the appellants' brief (Paper No. 26, dated April
23, 1996), and to the reply brief for the full exposition
thereof.
OPINION
In arriving at our decision in this appeal, we have
given careful consideration to appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art, and to the respective positions
advanced by the appellants and by the examiner. Upon evaluation
of all the evidence before us, it is our conclusion that the
evidence adduced by the examiner is insufficient to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness with respect to all claims on
appeal. Our reasoning for this determination follows.
We agree with the examiner that the patent to Zahradnik
discloses a preheater for an extruder which includes a pair of
counter-rotating screws that is similar to that recited in
appealed claim 9 except for drive means for co-rotating the
screw, for the particular configuration of the screw body
sections, and for the shape of the screw channels. We also agree
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007