Appeal No. 1998-2026
Applicatin No. 08/508,738
to the argument presented by appellant appears in the answer
(Paper No. 19), while the complete statement of appellant’s
argument can be found in the brief (Paper No. 18).
As indicated in the brief (page 4), claims 6 through 10
stand or fall together. In accordance with 37 CFR §
1.192(c)(7), we select claim 6 for review, infra, with the
remaining claims standing or falling therewith.
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the anticipation issues
raised in this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully
considered appellant’s specification and claim 6, the applied 2
2As disclosed in the specification, “[t]he shutoff flap
is kept closed for generating a counterpressure, until the
desired compaction is reached. Then, the shutoff valve is
opened as a result of the pressure, under which the piston ram
is operated in the compacting phase...” (pages 3 and 4) “The
pressure control of the flap by the pressure of the piston ram
of the compression device” allows continuously compacted
cylindrical chunks to form “in any desired degree of
compaction.” (page 4) “[T]he shutoff flap 9 is kept opened or
closed by a further piston-cylinder unit 19, 20 with the aid
of an interposed control unit (not shown) that is responsive
to the pressure of piston ram 17 (Figure 1) of the
piston/cylinder unit.” (page 8)
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007