Appeal No. 1999-2324
Application 08/723,737
modified air classification system at a speed of from 100 to
300 rpm results in significantly greater yields. This
argument is not well taken because it is not commensurate in
scope with claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 9 and 10, which
call for blades that are merely “widely spaced.” For the
reasons set forth in the paragraph spanning pages 4-5 of our
decision, we do not consider the terminology “widely spaced”
as applied to the blades of the rotary rejector to distinguish
over the blade spacing of Jones, Micro-Sizer, or Jäger.
Appellant also argues on page 4 of the request that the
increase in yield of low ash fraction by lowering the speed of
the rotary rejector is unexpected and, as such, provides clear
evidence of patentability of appellant’s claimed invention
over Jones and Micro-Sizer. This argument is a repeat of an
argument made by appellant on pages 10-13 of the main brief,
which we thoroughly treated on pages 11-14 of our decision.
On page 4 of the request, appellant advances the general
argument that Jäger discloses an air classifying system that
functions in an entirely different way than appellant’s
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007