Appeal No. 98-0608 Page 6
Application No. 08/413,284
will cause the cake to be detached from them and fall from the
machine.
For the reasons set forth above, the Section 102
rejection cannot be sustained against independent claim 1 or,
it follows, against claims 2-6, 8, 11 or 12, which depend
therefrom.
Independent claims 13 and 16 are directed to a method of
separation by filtration. Both of these claims include the
steps of introducing a quantity of sludge to be filtered into
a filtration chamber “one wall of which is comprised of a
substantially planar surface of a filter in a filtration
position,” and scraping this surface to “sweep” said cake off
of the surface. We find Alvord to be deficient here as an
anticipatory reference for reasons that were explained above
with regard to claim 1. This being the case, the Section 102
rejection of claims 13 and 16 also is not sustained.
The Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claim 17, which depends from claim 16, has been rejected
as being unpatentable over Alvord in view of Wiederkehr, which
was cited for its teaching of utilizing two presses in series.
The deficiencies cited above in the discussion of the Section
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007