Appeal No. 98-3125
Application Nos. 08/294,730, 90/003,655, 90/003,826 and
90/004,552
gripping and guiding roller systems of Hill and Wehr would be
incapable of use in the type of rotary debarking drum employed
in Sepling, since they would prevent the disclosed rotation of
the "tail ends" of the logs that project from the rotary drum
into the feed cylinder (3) of Sepling.
While we cannot support the examiner’s combination of
Sepling and Hill or Sepling and Wehr, we nonetheless will
sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 6 under 35
U.S.C. § 103. In reaching this conclusion we have carefully
reviewed the complete disclosure of the Sepling patent, and
find that the subject matter set forth in claims 1 and 6 on
appeal lacks novelty with regard to the debarking apparatus
described in Sepling. We refer specifically to the express
teaching found at column 4, lines 39-46, of Sepling, wherein
it is indicated that the chain feeder or conveyor (4) seen in
Figures 1 and 2 of the patent may be provided as separate
feeders/conveyors for the loading section (2) and the feed
cylinder (3). In this arrangement, the debarking apparatus of
Sepling would comprise (in the language of claim 1 on appeal):
a generally horizontal rotary drum debarker (5); power means
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007