Appeal 2006-2137
Application 10/375,748
to “a press for separating liquids from slurries and sludges and compacting
the solid materials…” See column 1, lines 15-17. This press is said to
include a solid cylindrical anvil ram having a plurality of small liquid-
conducting passages corresponding to the claimed die punch design. See
column 4, lines 20-63. We find that MacMurray further teaches (col. 2, ll.
14-21) that:
It is an object of my invention to provide a press for
simultaneously dewatering and compacting aqueous slurries
and sludges and the like without exposing the solids to air.
Another object is to provide a press of such character that can
be operated rapidly in a substantially continuous manner. A
further object is to provide a press that is relatively simple and
strong in construction and simple in operation.
Thus, we concur with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have been led to employ the press having the claimed punch design
taught by MacMurray to carry out the dewatering and compacting step
taught by Parker, motivated by a reasonable expectation of successfully
obtaining the advantages stated above. Parker clearly teaches employing a
press to remove water from its slurry.
The Appellant appears to argue that MacMurray is not analogous prior
art, thus implying that it is improperly combined with Parker and Tabe.
Reply Br. 1-2. We do not agree. Although as argued by the Appellant at
pages 1 and 2 of the Reply Brief, MacMurray is particularly interested in
“dewatering of sludges and slurries composed essentially of a mixture of
finely-divided lead and about 3% or more by weight of water…,”1 it clearly
indicates that its press is directed to separating liquids from any slurries and
1 MacMurray does not exclude slurries having the amount of water taught by1
Parker.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007