Appeal No. 98-0608 Page 5
Application No. 08/413,284
Another deficiency in Alvord from the standpoint of
anticipation is that it fails to establish that the piston/
chamber movement is carried out in “substantially liquid-tight
manner.” There is no such explanation in the disclosure, nor
is there a listing of the materials that are intended to be
put through the device from which it can be determined that
they contain liquid which will be removed during the pressing
operation. Absent reason for such construction, it cannot be
concluded that the piston/chamber movement is substantially
liquid-tight. Finally, Alvord fails to disclose or teach a
scraper device that “is capable of sweeping the surface of the
filter . . . in order to detach the solid phase cake.” In
view of the description in the appellant’s specification and
the arguments advanced in the Briefs, we interpret “sweeping”
to mean that the scraper traverses the full extent of the
movable element. This is not the case in the Alvord machine,
where it is clear from the drawings that the cake ejector
traverses only a very small portion of the extent of the press
elements; there is no requirement that it do so, for the press
elements are vertical and a slight movement of the ejector
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007