Appeal No. 2006-2168
Application No. 10/421,683
Discussion
The invention is directed to an improved bushing for making fibers from a
molten material. According to Appellant, when excessively hot material such as
glass contacts a mid or center portion of a conventional bushing screen, it flows too
rapidly through the center portion and down to the tip plate and nozzles. The glass
will break if it is too hot as it exits the ends of the nozzles, causing a costly
interruption in the fiberizing process. The present invention is said to reduce the
occurrence of this problem through the use of a bushing screen having a
significantly reduced hole area per unit of screen area in a generally mid or central
portion of the bushing screen and a higher hole area per unit of screen area in the
surrounding peripheral portion of the screen.
In Appeal No. 2006-0192, the Examiner rejected all of the claims under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite due to the terms "end portion" and
“mid or central portion.” In the present application, the Examiner uses essentially
the same reasoning in rejecting claims 25-32, 34-56, and 93-101 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, as indefinite because of the term "portion", as used with
"generally central" and "peripheral." According to the Examiner, there is nothing
in the specification, drawings, prior art or prosecution history which gives any
indication as to what constitutes the "generally central portion" and "peripheral
portion.” The Examiner maintains that one of ordinary skill in the art cannot
determine the bounds of the claims and, therefore, cannot determine whether a
somewhat similar screen has a "generally central portion" and "peripheral portion"
which would infringe on the present claims.
Appellant, in turn, traverses the rejection for reasons similar to those set
forth in Appeal No. 2006-0192. In particular, Appellant argues that the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007