Appeal 2006-2948
Application 10/194,872
database, and triggering a countermeasure to avoid a worsening condition of
the property.
Appealed claims 74-122 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by, or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bloice.
Appellants' Brief devotes separate sections to the rejection of claims
74 and 98. The Brief fails to present arguments with respect to the rejection
of any of the other claims on appeal. Since the arguments for claims 74 and
98 are essentially the same, all the appealed claims stand or fall together
with claim 74.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants' arguments for
patentability. However, we concur 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 to the extent that it is based upon
§ 103.
Bloice, like Appellants, discloses a method of monitoring the state of
a felt or screen during its use in dewatering a fibrous web. Also like
Appellants' process, Bloice utilizes a control unit 11 to compare a
preselected value and a measured value during operation of either the
permeability or thickness of the screen. Once the permeability or thickness
of the screen reaches a certain measured value during operation, the Bloice
system, like Appellants, invokes a countermeasure to prevent further
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007