Appeal 2006-2908
Application 10/370,840
Appealed claims 1-4, 7, and 9-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Grover in view of Ziegler, Brew, and
Groeblacher.
Appellants have not set forth arguments that are reasonably specific to
any particular claim on appeal. Accordingly, all the appealed claims stand
or fall together with claim 1.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants’ arguments for
patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner
that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art within the meaning of § 103 in view of the applied prior art.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection for the reasons set
forth in the Answer, and we add the following for emphasis only.
There is apparently no dispute that Grover, like Appellants, discloses
a bow deflector device for controlling a flow velocity gradient of a feed
stream of plastic batch material to be provided to an extrusion die which
comprises a base including an aperture that is sufficiently large for the feed
stream of the plastic batch material to pass therethrough, as well as an
adjustable plate which controls the size of the aperture and the correction of
bow deflection. In particular, Grover provides the following relevant
disclosure:
The degree of bow correction flexibility in the design shown is
dictated by aperture 24. Depending on the diameter of the
aperture, the deflector device offers a flow resistance which
varies across its length, which is impressed across the face of
the feed stream correcting the degree of bow.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007