Appeal No. 2005-1093 Page 5
Application No. 10/058,200
The appellants also argue that Reynolds does not disclose a conveyor which
comprises a continuously circulating conveyor in which the filter tubes are conveyed
cross-axially as recited in claim 92. We agree with the examiner that Reynolds does
disclose a conveyor 28 which moves the filter tubes cross-axially as recited in claim 92.
Therefore we will sustain the rejection as it is directed to claim 92.
The appellants argue that Reynolds does not disclose a processing station
which comprises at least one filtering material feeding station as recited in claim 93 or a
filtering material insertion station as recited in claim 94. We agree with the examiner
that the hoppers 30 feed filtering material into the filter tubes and are each a filtering
material insertion station. Therefore we will sustain the rejection as it is directed to
claim 93 and 94.
The appellants argue that Reynolds does not disclose a process as recited in
claim 90 which comprises at least one removal station as recited in claim 95. The
examiner relies on the Reynolds removal station 92 for disclosure of the removal
station. We agree with the appellants that Reynold does not disclose a removal station
which is “one of the processing stations” as recited in claim 95. As we stated above, we
are of the opinion that the drum 28 is the single conveyor which supplies the filter tubes
to the processing stations. Drum 28 does not convey the filter tubes to the removal
station 92. Therefore, in our view, the subject matter of claim 95 is not anticipated by
Reynolds.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007