Appeal No. 1997-3267
Application 08/324,386
the arrow. At the end of the suction stroke
as illustrated in FIG. 1b, the subatmospheric
pressure is obviated by the supply of air so
that the filter belt and the suction box are
disengaged and the suction box is returned
by a mechanism (not shown) to the initial
position (column 1, line 62, through
column 2, line 9).
Although Oosten teaches the vacuum being at below atmospheric
pressure, Oosten also teaches at column 3, lines 6-8, “[t]he
whole device may be surrounded by a cabinet (not shown) for
operation, for example, in a nitrogen atmosphere, for example,
at excess pressure.”
We are not convinced by appellant’s argument that Stahl
and Oosten teach away from the device and method claimed by the
appellant. Both references teach a closed system at excess or
positive pressure. We conclude that a person of ordinary skill
in the art would have been led to the appellant’s invention of
claim 9 given the collective teachings of the applied prior art.
Therefore, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 9.
The examiner’s rejection of claim 11 which falls with claim 9
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007