Appeal 2006-2016
Application 10/347,345
fail[s] to positively disclose said drum and said coil are rotatable at a same
rotational speed . . .” (claim 26) without proffering any reasons why the
Examiner’s inherency determination is incorrect (Br. 14, 19).
Moreover, regarding method claim 5, for example, we determine that
the Examiner’s inherency position is reasonable because at either start-up or
shut-down of the device, the speeds of the “rotating coil” and the drum
would at some point be the same. Additionally, regarding apparatus claim
26, for example, the Examiner’s inherency position is reasonable because
Krebs’ screw conveyor (i.e., “rotatable coil”) and drum are inherently
functionally capable of rotating at the same speed. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d
1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s § 102(b) rejection of
argued claims 3, 5, 24, and 26.
CLAIMS 9-14, 17, 18, 21, 30-35, 38, 39, AND 42
Appellant’s arguments regarding claims 9-14, 17, 18, 21, 30-35,
38, 39, and 42 are without persuasive merit.
For example, regarding claim 9 Appellant argues that “. . . KREBS
fail[s] to positively disclose the drum is oriented horizontally . . .” (Br. 14).
However, Krebs clearly discloses that the drum is oriented horizontally
(Krebs, col. 8, ll. 16).
Similarly, regarding claim 12, for example, Appellant argues “. . .
KREBS fail[s] to positively disclose the combination of features recited in
claim 12 [i.e., “the drum includes transporting bars attached to the inside
wall that are arranged to lift the pulp inside the drum”] . . .” (Br. 15-16).
However, this limitation is satisfied by Krebs’ disclosure of “carrier strips”
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013