Appeal No. 1998-1417
Application No. 08/526,891
mailed Dec. 29, 1997, paper 18, pages 4-5.) Additionally,
claims 1 through 4, 6 through 12, and 17 on appeal stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Treiber.
(Id. at pages 5-6.)1
We reverse these rejections for the reasons stated in the
appeal brief filed Nov. 28, 1997 (paper 17) and the reply brief
filed Feb. 4, 1998 (paper 19) but add the following comments for
emphasis.
The appealed claims recite that: (i) at least one hollow
pin is located at a distance from the shaft equal to “at least
2.7% of the barrel diameter” or “at least approximately 2.7% of
the barrel diameter” (claims 1, 7-10, and 17); or (ii) a first
or hollow pin is located at a greater distance from a shaft of
the extruder than another or second pin (claims 14 and 19). The
examiner, however, does not identify any portion of Treiber’s
disclosure that actually addresses these limitations by way of a
teaching or suggestion.
In response to the appellants’ main argument regarding
these limitations, the examiner takes the following position
(answer, pages 7-8):
1 We rely on the copy of the reference submitted by the
appellants in response to our 37 CFR § 1.196(d) (2003)
(effective Dec. 1, 1997) order mailed Jan. 29, 2003 (paper 28).
(“RESPONSE TO BOARD OF APPEALS” filed Mar. 4, 2004, paper 29.)
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007