Appeal No. 1999-2324
Application 08/723,737
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Many of the arguments advanced by appellant in the
request are merely a variation of arguments made in the brief,
and are no more persuasive now than they were then. For
example, on page 4 of the request, appellant notes that the
air classification system disclosed in US 4,963,634 (DiRienzo)
is similar to the air classification systems of Jones and
Micro-Sizer, and implies that one of ordinary skill in the art
would operate the air classification systems of Jones and/or
Micro-Sizer at a rotary rejector speed on the order of 900 rpm
based on the teaching of the ‘634 patent. This implied
argument is similar to the argument made by appellant on pages
6-7 of the main brief and was thoroughly treated in our
decision in the paragraph spanning pages 10-11 thereof.
On page 4 of the request, appellant makes much of the
fact that practicing the claimed invention by modifying
commercial air classifiers of the design of Jones and Micro-
Sizer by removing every other rejector blade (for a blade
spacing of about 3.57% of the circumference) and operating the
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007