Appeal No. 98-3125
Application Nos. 08/294,730, 90/003,655, 90/003,826 and
90/004,552
is "substantially less than either the width of the
conveyor . . . or the diameter of the drum 24" and that such
spacing is on the order of only about 3 feet.
Given that the "auxiliary" conveyor in Sepling associated
with the feed cylinder (3) is also a link chain conveyor like
the main conveyor therein, we must conclude that the
"auxiliary" conveyor of Sepling would not constitute a "low
friction region" like that required in the claims on appeal,
since it would have generally the same level of friction as
the main chain conveyor, not less. Moreover, the length of
the "auxiliary" conveyor in Sepling cannot be considered to be
of "short length," as that term is understood in light of
appellants’ disclosure, since, as can be clearly seen in
Figures 1 and 2 of Sepling, the "auxiliary" conveyor
associated with the feed cylinder (3) would have a length that
is substantially greater than 3 feet, greater than the width
of the main conveyor of loading section (2) and greater than
the diameter of the debarking drum 5. Thus, we must conclude
that the subject matter of claim 16 on appeal is different
21
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007