Appeal No. 1999-0700 Page 17
Application No. 08/590,580
perhaps made by a different process by virtue of the use of a different starting material, is
similar or identical to the claimed product-by-process of claims 10-18. In other words, does the
use of compressible waste solids discharged from a dewatering device in a waste paper
recycling plant, the ash content of which may vary depending upon the particular plant or mill
from which it is obtained (specification, pages 6 and 7), as a starting material necessarily yield,
in and of itself, any materially different properties in the resultant product as compared with a
product made using Kok's process from other types of sludge derived generally from a paper,
pulp or board making process (e.g., primary sludge)?
3. With regard to claim 5, is a "drum pelletizer" or "disk pelletizer" as disclosed by Lowe,
in column 2, lines 52-57) a "die-roller pelletizer device" as claimed? If the examiner finds that
either of these pelletizers is a "die-roller pelletizer device," the examiner should consider
whether the teachings of Lowe with regard to these pelletizers would have suggested the use of
such pelletizers in the Kok process.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 19-23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, claims 1-4, 6-8 and 10-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and claims 1-23
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed. A new ground of rejection of claims 1-4, 8-12 and 19-23
has been entered and the application is remanded to the examiner for consideration of the issues
discussed above.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007