Appeal 2006-2016
Application 10/347,345
Rather than reiterate the respective positions advocated by the Appellant
and by the Examiner concerning these rejections, we refer to the Brief and to
the Answer respectively for a complete exposition thereof.
OPINION
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) REJECTION OVER KREBS
CLAIMS 1, 22, AND 43
Appellant’s only argued distinction regarding claims 1, 22, and 43 is
the “coil” claim feature (Br. 10-11). Specifically, Appellant argues that the
claim features “discharging the recovered paper and impurities out of the
drum at the second face with a rotating coil” (claim 1) and “a rotatable coil
positioned at the second face of said drum and arranged to discharge the
recovered paper and impurities out of said drum” (claims 22 and 43) are not
disclosed by Krebs (Br. 10-11).
We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Appellant’s “coil” claim
feature is disclosed by Krebs.
Krebs’ Figure 2 embodiment shows a screw conveyor (i.e., “rotating
coil” or “rotatable coil”) that extends through the drum (1) to discharge the
separated “finer fraction” 13 of fibrous material F at the second end (5’) of
the drum (1) (col. 6, ll. 18-39). The Examiner indicates that Krebs’ Figure 2
embodiment discloses such a feature in his rejection of claims 1, 22, and 43
(Answer 3). Moreover, Appellant does not dispute that Krebs discloses
using the screw conveyor to remove a “finer fraction” 13 from the drum (Br.
12). Rather, Appellant argues that Krebs’ “finer fraction” 13 removed by
the screw conveyor would not have impurities such that the claim features
“discharging the recovered paper and impurities” (claim 1) or “to discharge
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013