Appeal No. 95-1849
Application 07/681,527
direction of the rotor opposite the rotational
direction of the rotor (lines 10 through 13).
The final step is removing the liquid freed from the dispersed
substance.
In the examiner's opinion, Bechtolsheim teaches all of the
subject matter of the claims except for the liquid having a
component of movement that is opposite the direction of rotation
of the rotor. However, it is the examiner's belief that this
would occur naturally in such a machine "due to the laws of
nature," as confirmed by Berber (Answer, page 4). The appellants
argue that Berber teaches away from their invention on
this point, because in the only mention of a construction wherein
the spacers are of a height equal to that of the space between
the two discs, that is, bridge the space, the resulting flow of
liquid is said to be along the generatrix of the cone, which is
not what is required by the appellants' claims (column 3, lines 6
through 11).
It is the examiner’s further position that the manner in
which the appellants have claimed the spacing means does not
define over the spacing means disclosed by Berber in Figures 4
and 5. The appellants point out that the claimed spacing means
are recited as being "positioned between and bridging the spaces
between the separation disc," which means that they extend from
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007