Appeal No. 1999-0313 Page 9
Application No. 08/918,089
For the reasons stated above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
Claim 44
We will not sustain the rejection of claim 44 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
We agree with the appellants' argument (brief, pp. 6-7)
that the applied prior art does not suggest the claimed
subject matter of claim 44.
Claim 44 requires the feed augers to have "a tapered
peripheral diameter." However, this limitation is not
suggested by the applied prior art. In that regard, while
Miller does teach screw mixers each having a tapered
peripheral diameter, it is our view that Miller does not teach
or suggest modifying the augers in the pug mill of Reed to
each include a tapered peripheral diameter.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007