Ex parte SIEGFRIED R. WISSMANN et al. - Page 4

          Appeal No. 97-0576                                                          
          Application No. 08/308,876                                                  

                    Rather than reiterate the examiner's statement of the             
          above rejections and the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the             
          examiner and the appellants, we refer to pages 3 through 10 of              
          the examiner's answer, to the supplemental answer, to pages 6               
          through 18 of the appellants' brief (Paper No. 26, dated April              
          23, 1996), and to the reply brief for the full exposition                   
                    In arriving at our decision in this appeal, we have               
          given careful consideration to appellants' specification and                
          claims, to the applied prior art, and to the respective positions           
          advanced by the appellants and by the examiner.  Upon evaluation            
          of all the evidence before us, it is our conclusion that the                
          evidence adduced by the examiner is insufficient to establish a             
          prima facie case of obviousness with respect to all claims on               
          appeal.  Our reasoning for this determination follows.                      
                    We agree with the examiner that the patent to Zahradnik           
          discloses a preheater for an extruder which includes a pair of              
          counter-rotating screws that is similar to that recited in                  
          appealed claim 9 except for drive means for co-rotating the                 
          screw, for the particular configuration of the screw body                   
          sections, and for the shape of the screw channels.  We also agree           


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007