Appeal No. 2006-2168
Application No. 10/421,683
and spaced above a top of the tip plate or orifice plate, said screen being
attached to said at least one sidewall, the improvement comprising that said
screen has a generally central portion and a peripheral portion surrounding
said central portion and the holes in said screen are either located, sized or
located and sized to produce a low flow rate of molten material in the
generally central portion of the screen and a medium flow rate in a
peripheral portion of the screen surrounding said generally central portion.
Ground of Rejection
The sole ground of rejection of claims 25-32, 34-56, and 93-101 is under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Background
The present application, filed April 23, 2003, is a continuation of U.S.
Application 08/929,836, filed September 15, 1997. An appeal was filed in the ‘836
Application from the final rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, and §§ 102(b) and 103. Appeal No. 2000-0035. On February 20, 2003,
a decision was mailed in Appeal No. 2000-0035 in which we reversed the
Examiner’s rejections and entered a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.196(b). A request for
continued examination was filed on November 13, 2003. A second appeal was
filed in the ‘836 application in July, 2004. Appeal No. 2006-0192. On June 29,
2006, a decision was mailed in Appeal No. 2006-0192, in which the rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, was reversed as to claims 2-4, 8-15, 21,
22, and 24 and affirmed as to claim 23.1 As noted by Appellant, the issues
presented in the present appeal are similar to the issues in Appeal No. 2006-0192.
1 Claim 23 was rejected because of an error in punctuation. In our decision, we stated that
Appellant should be given leave to amend claim 23 pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(c).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007