Appeal No. 2005-1093 Page 7
Application No. 10/058,200
Appellants also argue that Reynolds does not disclose the subject matter of claim
100. We agree with the examiner that Reynolds discloses a first transfer means (30a,
30) for inserting filtering material into filter tubes. Therefore, we will sustain this
rejection as it is directed to claim 100.
Appellants further argue that Reynolds does not disclose the subject matter of
claim 101 . We agree with the examiner that Reynolds discloses a second transfer
means (32) that stops the first transfer means. Therefore, we will sustain this rejection
as it is directed to claim 101.
Claims 107 and 115 recite that the processing stations include one processing
station for inserting at least two portions of the filtering materials into the one filter tube.
In regard to the rejection of claims 107 and 115, the examiner recites:
. . . Reynolds shows four hopper means 30 and lower hopper means not
identified with numerals as shown in figure 1. These hoppers insert
portions of filtering materials into a filter tube. Each hopper inserts a
portion and therefore the combined hoppers insert two portions as claimed
in a single operational stop. The entire operation reads on a single step
as claimed. [Answer at page 5.]
We agree with appellants that Reynolds does not disclose that a single conveyor
conveys the filter tubes to a processing station which inserts two portions of filtering
material into the filter tubes in a single processing station. Although the two sets of
hoppers may fill filter tubes depicted at section A and section B in Reynolds figure 1,
these two sets of hoppers do not constitute the same processing station. In fact, as we
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007