Appeal No. 96-4194
Application 08/239,732
challenge with either a reference teaching or a declaration
executed by the examiner, we must reverse the obviousness
rejection of claims 12, 14, 15, 17 and 19.2
DECISION
The decision of the examiner is affirmed as to claims 1,
7 through 9 and 11, and is reversed as to claims 12, 14, 15,
17 and 19.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
2Our reversal of the obviousness rejection is based on
procedural grounds, and has nothing to do with the accuracy of
the examiner’s conclusion (Answer, page 4) concerning the use
of rollers to rotate an object. We note in passing that
Everroad uses roller bearings 29 (Figure 3) to rotate the
filter 14 via table 11.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007