Appeal No. 1998-2026
Application No. 08/508,738
REMAND TO THE EXAMINER
A. The examiner should consider certain language in claim 6
as to an issue of its conformance with the description
requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. More
specifically, we recognize that the recitation of the
counterpressure means being movable “in the direction of
discharge” of compressed dust, was first included in a new
claim 6, in an amendment (Paper No. 10) submitted subsequent
to the filing of the application. Turning to the original
disclosure, it addresses a piston ram or rod that operates in
a compression tube to compact fine dust and eject a compacted
mass, with a counterpressure means or shutoff flap closing the
compression tube at its discharge end. As depicted, the
centrally pivoted shutoff flap pivots in its movement between
its opened (Fig. 4) and closed (Fig. 3b) positions. As such,
the direction of the movement of the pivoted counterpressure
means or shutoff flap (along an arc) does not correspond to
the now claimed direction of discharge of compressed dust.
Thus, the overall original disclosure appears to fail to
descriptively support the claimed direction of movement of the
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007