Appeal No. 98-3125
Application Nos. 08/294,730, 90/003,655, 90/003,826 and
90/004,552
articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of
our review, we have made the determinations which follow.
Looking first to the examiner's rejection of appellants’
independent claims 1, 6 and 16 under § 103 based on Sepling
and Hill or Wehr, we note that the examiner's position is that
Sepling shows a debarking apparatus substantially as claimed
including: a rotary debarking drum (5), chain conveyor means
(4) for conveying groups of logs to the debarking drum, and
drive means for continuously driving the conveyor. What the
examiner finds lacking in Sepling with regard to the claimed
subject matter is that "Sepling does not show the inclusion of
auxiliary feed means (comprising low friction rollers)" (Paper
No. 10, page 4). To provide for this perceived difference
between Sepling and the claimed subject matter, the examiner
observes that both Hill (roller 66) and Wehr (roller 11)
"clearly teach the desirability of providing
secondary/auxiliary feed means, in the form of a roller read
as being low friction operating in conjunction with primary
feed means, in combination with a debarking unit" (Paper No.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007