Appeal No. 1998-1417
Application No. 08/526,891
[N]otice that Treiber defines the shear gap “s” as the
gap between the kneading flights turning with the
screw and the stationary pins. Figure 3 illustrates
the different types of kneading pins that creates
[sic] a particular profile or shear gap. Appellants
are reminded that different shear gaps form a profile,
this simply means that the distance between the shaft
of kneading flight and pins will change throughout the
extruder [sic]. One pin will have a greater distance
from the shaft than the other. Second, Treiber
teaches that any of the kneading pins installed in the
extruder represents a potential injection point. In
other words, a hollow injection pin can be substituted
for a standard kneading pin at the desired location.
Therefore, if any of the kneading pins in the extruder
represents a potential injection point and a hollow
injection pin can be substituted for the kneading pin,
the pins (kneading and hollow) being capable of
forming a profile due to its shear gap “s”, then for a
hollow pin at some point in the extruder the shear gap
at that point must inherently be greater than another
adjacent hollow pin if a profile is to follow [sic].
The language of the claims (14 and 19) contrary to
Appellants [sic] allegation finds no distinction [sic]
to that of the teaching of Treiber. Therefore, the
claims are anticipated. [Emphasis added.]
The examiner’s position lacks merit. As appreciated by the
examiner, the shear gap “s” discussed in Treiber (page 8) refers
to the gap “between the kneading flights turning with the screw
and the stationary kneading tools in the barrel,” not the
distance between the shaft and the stationary kneading tool.
Although Treiber teaches that the shear gap “s” may be varied by
selecting different pins, this teaching has nothing to do with
the distance between the shaft and the stationary kneading tool
(i.e., pin). On this point, we note that the examiner offers no
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007