Appeal No. 2005-1130
Application No. 10/072,876
wall, said lamella, which is structured and arranged to be
mounted within the headbox nozzle, comprising:
a lamella body having a downstream lamella end structured
and arranged to be positioned downstream, relative to a
suspension flow direction, of an opposite end of said lamella
body; and
said downstream lamella end comprising a first surface, a
portion coupled to an sloped relative to said first surface, and
a second surface, located opposite said first surface, provided
with a non-planar surface.
THE REFERENCES
Sanford 4,941,950 Jul. 17, 1990
Ruf et al. (Ruf) 5,645,689 Jul. 8, 1997
THE REJECTIONS
The claims stand rejected as follows: claims 1-3, 11, 15,
17-23, 31, 35, 37-42, 44 and 48-50 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Ruf; claims 1-3, 15, 17-23, 31, 35, 37-42, 44
and 48-50 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Sanford;
claims 4-10, 13, 14, 16, 24-30, 33, 34, 36, 43 and 45-47 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Ruf or Sanford; and claims 12,
32, 46 and 51-53 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Ruf in
view of Sanford.
OPINION
We affirm the rejections over Ruf and over Ruf in view of
Sanford, and reverse the rejections over Sanford.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007