Appeal No. 2005-1093 Page 4
Application No. 10/058,200
one processing station and the cutting station to be another
processing station.
Furthermore, means 28 is transporting the filter tubes
to filler means 30 and subsequent processing stations such
as cap inserting station 38. Since there are two filling
hoppers as shown in figure 1, each filling hopper is read on a
processing station which reads on multiple stations as
claimed. [Answer at page 4.]
We agree with the appellants that a stopping station is not a processing station.
In addition, we agree with the appellants that the stop 20 is part of the cutting station
which includes cutting means 22. Stop 20 holds the tubes in place while the tubes are
cut by the cutting means 22.
However, we agree with the examiner that the means 28 is a conveyor that
conveys the tubes to a plurality of processing stations, each of the hoppers being a
processing station.
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the rejection as it is directed to claim 90
as being anticipated by Reynolds. We will likewise sustain this rejection as it is directed
to claims 104 to 106 as these claims stand or fall with claim 90 (brief at page 8).
The appellants argue that claim 91 includes a rotating device for rotating the
tubes and that this feature distinguishes the subject matter of claim 91 over Reynolds.
We agree with the examiner that Reynolds discloses a rotating drum 28 which rotates
on a vertical axis and thus discloses a rotating device as recited in claim 91. Therefore
we will sustain the rejection as it is directed to claim 91.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007