Appeal No. 1999-2324
Application 08/723,737
claimed air classifier. Appellant also contends that Jäger’s
impeller 6 is not a “rotary rejector” as called for in the
claims. However, appellant has not explained, and it is not
apparent to us, how the device of Jäger operates differently
than appellant’s invention as claimed or why the impeller 6 of
Jäger cannot be considered a “rotary rejector.” In the
absence of a more
specific explanation of how Jäger’s air classifier differs
from appellant’s invention as claimed, and/or why Jäger’s
impeller cannot be considered a “rotary rejector” as broadly
claimed, these arguments are not well taken. Furthermore, we
are not in agreement with appellant’s implied argument on page
4 of the request to the effect that Jäger’s system is limited
to separating flour from grit.
Appellant argues on pages 4 and 5 of the request that the
air classifier systems of Jäger and MPVI are disclosed for
classifying material with a disparity of size and density, and
therefore would not have made obvious appellant’s claimed
method of separating substantially similarly sized particles.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007