Appeal No. 1999-0400
Application No. 08/316,938
conical sieve does not constitute, and would not have
suggested, a sieve in the form of a U-shaped trough.
Thus, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 27, and claims 25, 26, 28 and 31/27 which
depend therefrom, as being unpatentable over Edwards in view of
Edmonds.
XII. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 25 through 27
and 31/27 as being unpatentable over Sipos in view of Madsen
Sipos does not meet the limitation in claim 27 requiring
the agglomerate-forming sieve to have the form of a U-shaped
trough, and Madsen does not overcome this deficiency for the
reasons expressed above.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 27, and claims 25, 26 and 31/27
which depend therefrom, as being unpatentable over Sipos in
view of Madsen.
XIII. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 25 through 28
and 31/27 as being unpatentable over Sipos in view of Edmonds
For the reasons explained above, Edmonds does not cure the
failure of Sipos to meet the limitation in claim 27 requiring
21
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007