Appeal No. 1997-3267
Application 08/324,386
We do not find appellant’s arguments convincing.
Stahl teaches the mixture (suspension feedstock 25) being fed
through the pressure resistant wall (29') without problems and
in the usual manner with pumps in order to deliver the mixture
to the belt filter (20) (translation, pages 7 and 12). We are
convinced that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
understood from the specification of Stahl that the mixture for
separation is maintained under higher pressure than atmospheric
when supplied to a chamber pressurized to above atmospheric
pressure to thereby prevent backflow. Ultimately, we consider
that an artisan would have understood the mechanism for supplying
the mixture to the pressurized chamber of the prior art to
operate in the same manner that we have concluded supra was
implicitly disclosed by the appellant’s specification. There-
fore, we will affirm the examiner’s rejection of claims 4 and 6
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Stahl.
Next, we will address the rejection of claims 5, 7, 8
and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Stahl. Claim 5 depends
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007