Appeal No. 2004-2284
Application 09/832,873
the reaction is propylene, any other monomer may be present, because the term ‘comprises’
permits the inclusion of other steps, elements, or materials.”). For example, steam or hot water
as well as bleach and other chemicals can be applied to the stock in the mallet roll and/or in the
dispersing machine (specification, e.g., page 3, [0007]). Claim 13 specifies that the stock is
transferred from the mallet roll to the central area of the dispersing machine via a screw
conveyor by dropping it into the screw conveyor. The transitional term “comprising” would
permit the inclusion of other means for this purpose in addition to the screw conveyor.
Turning now to the application of prior art to the claimed invention encompassed by
claims 1, 6 and 13, we find that Egenes would have disclosed to one of ordinary skill in this art6
“a device for processing particulate material,” described as “especially wood fibre pulp and more
specifically pulp containing recycle paper,” wherein “a very good mixing of steam and
particulate material can be obtained so that the pulp is heated evenly,” and “[t]he pulp particles
are reduced in size in that a rapidly rotating grinder is used to mix pulp and steam” (page 1,
ll. 3-10 and 33-37, and page 2, ll. 1-17). Egenes discloses two embodiments, in the second of
which
the first disc disperser can function as a predisperser where impurities are dispersed
whilst the pulp is relatively cold, which will be advantageous for certain printer’s inks,
such as laser and Xerox, whereas the second disc disperser will function as a main
disperser whilst the pulp is hot, which will be advantageous in the case of impurities
such as so-called stickies and so forth [Page 2, l. 34, to page 3, l. 3.]
Egenes describes FIG. 3 as including screw press 18 as “a dewatering zone where the
pulp is dewatered . . . [and] the pulp passes to the first disc dispenser 1” (page 4, ll. 24-28). We
note here with respect to claim 6, that a “worm extruder” is a well known form of “screw press,”
and appellants admit that it is known in the art to use “worm extruders” to “press out” fibrous
stock suspensions, and that a worm extruder has a “conveyer screw” (specification, page 2,
[0003]). See In re Nomiya, 509 F.2d 566, 570-71, 571 n.5, 184 USPQ 607, 611, 611 n.4 (CCPA
1302-04, 190 USPQ 425, 426-28 (CCPA 1976).
6 It is well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the
inferences one of ordinary skill in this art would have reasonably been expected to draw
therefrom, see In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782-83 (Fed. Cir.
1992); In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968), presuming skill on
the part of this person. In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743, 226 USPQ 771, 774 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007