Appeal No. 2004-2284
Application 09/832,873
stock,” and we find no basis in the claim language or in the written description in the
specification to read such language into the claims. See Morris, supra; Zletz, supra. Thus,
appellants’ arguments in these respects are not persuasive. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344,
1348-49, 213 USPQ 1, 5 (CCPA 1982). We further find it of interest that the structure of the
pulper illustrated in Riquet Fig. 1 is remarkably similar to the structure of the “mallet roll”
illustrated in specification Fig. 3.
We also find no limitation in claim 13 requiring “adding steam to the material in the
dispersing device” (brief, page 17). To the extent this limitation appears in claim 16 (id.), we
pointed out above that Egenes provides for the introduction of steam in disc predisperser 1 and
main disc disperser 8, as does Riquet in the horizontal pulper of Fig. 1 thereof.
Accordingly, based on our consideration of the totality of the record before us, we have
weighed the evidence of obviousness found in the combined teachings of Egenes, Riquet and
Aktiebolag with appellants’ countervailing evidence of and argument for nonobviousness and
conclude that the claimed invention encompassed by appealed claims 1, 5 through 7 and 13
through 16 would have been obvious as a matter of law under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We have carefully reviewed the record on this appeal and based thereon find ourselves in
agreement with the supported position advanced by the examiner that, prima facie, the claimed
process of dispersing fibrous paper stock encompassed by appealed claim 2 would have been
obvious over the combined teachings of Egenes, Riquet, Aktiebolag7 and Kriebel ‘653 to one of
ordinary skill in this art at the time the claimed invention was made.
The examiner points out that Kriebel ‘653 discloses that disc dispersers, such as that of
disc disperser 8 of the second embodiment of Egenes, “conventionally have several lines of teeth
on the surface of the discs to help disperse the paper stock” (answer, page 5), as required by
claim 2. We find such disclosure in col. 3, ll. 10-25, and disperse zone 9 of Fig. 1 as described at
col. 4, l. 63, to col. 5, l. 5, of Kriebel ‘573 (see above note 4).
Accordingly, in view of the examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness, we again
evaluate all of the evidence of obviousness and nonobviousness based on the record as a whole,
7 A discussion of Aktiebolag is not necessary to our decision. See Kronig, supra.
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007