Appeal No. 1997-3267
Application 08/324,386
pressure difference between the pressure in the pressure chamber
3
and the pressure in the suction box being “roughly 1-2 bar.” We
agree with the examiner’s position that the 20 bar parameter in
combination with a pressure difference of 1-2 bar is one which
“would have been routinely optimized by one having ordinary skill
in the art at the time the invention was made” (answer, page 4).
The appellant argues that there is no suggestion in
Stahl to utilize the very high pressure of 20 bar and moreover to
utilize both an exceptionally high pressure of 20 bar in the
pressure chamber and a difference between the pressure in the
pressure chamber and the pressure in the suction box of 1-2 bar.
The appellant understands Stahl to teach (brief, pages 9-11) a
pressure chamber intended to be raised to only slightly elevated
pressures instead of the 20 bar required in the pressure chamber
as set forth in claim 5 on appeal. Furthermore, the appellant
argues that Stahl is limited to slightly elevated pressures since
Stahl teaches a product space to be maintained under atmospheric
pressure and thus a positive pressure of only 1.5 bar which
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007