Appeal No. 1997-0855
Application No. 08/248,543
Appellants submit at page 2 of the Request that we
inexplicably adopted the examiner's reasoning that element (d)
of claim 22 is "met by water supplied by conduit 45 to adjust
the consistency in mix tank 32" (page 4 of Answer).
Appellants maintain that "the means of element (d) must supply
'a slurry of fiber in liquid water,'" whereas "[p]ure water
supplied through conduit 45 of Cheshire '156 cannot satisfy
element (d)." Appellants contend that "mix tank 32, conduit
35 and pump 34 are not capable of supplying a slurry of fiber
in 'liquid water' as mix tank 32 contains a 'foam-fiber'
mixture - not a 'slurry of fiber in liquid water'" (page 2 of
Request).
We are not persuaded by this argument because Cheshire
'956 expressly discloses that pump 34 is activated to supply
foamable liquid from silo 26 and mix tank 32 to the headbox.
Hence, the material delivered to the headbox through line 35
is a liquid that is capable of generating a foam.
Appellants also contend at page 2 of the Request that
"Cheshire fails to disclose a 'means for combining said water
slurry of fibers with said foamed liquid' as required by
element (e)." In our view, it is clear from reading the
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007