Appeal 2006-2016
Application 10/347,345
inside wall of the drum in order to mechanically process the recovered
paper;
a rotatable coil positioned at the second face of said drum and
arranged to discharge the recovered paper and impurities out of said drum;
and
said at least one displacement body being arranged to extend through
said rotatable coil and being held within said drum from outside of said
drum.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
of unpatentability:
Tremolada US 3,614,003 Oct. 19, 1971
Krebs US 6,000,640 Dec. 14, 1999
The rejections as presented by the Examiner are as follows:
1. Claims 1, 3, 5, 9-14, 17, 18, 21, 22, 24, 26, 30-35, 38, 39, 42, and 43
are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being unpatentable over
Krebs.1
2. Claims 2, 6-8, 15, 16, 19, 20, 23, 27-29, 36, 37, 40, and 41 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Krebs.1
3. Claims 4 and 25 are rejected under § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Krebs in view of Tremolada.
1 Claims 14 and 35 (the § 102(b) rejection), and 8 and 29 (§ 103(a) rejection
over Krebs alone) were not included in the Examiner’s statement of the
rejection (Answer 3, 4), however, the Examiner included such claims in his
explanation of the rejection (Answer 4, 5). Appellant understood that these
claims (i.e., claims 8, 14, 29, and 35) were under rejection by his statement
that “[c]laims 1-43 . . . stand finally rejected” (Br. 4). Therefore, the
Examiner’s inadvertent oversight regarding these claims is harmless.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013