Appeal 2006-2016
Application 10/347,345
9 that move with the rotation of the drum to lift the fibrous material F
(Krebs, col. 5, ll. 29-33).
We have considered each of the argued claims under review but, like
the Examiner, find them to be anticipated by Krebs.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of argued claims 9-
14, 17, 18, 21, 30-35, 38, 39, and 42.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) OVER KREBS
Appellant’s arguments regarding claims 2, 6-8, 15, 16, 19, 20, 23,
27-29, 36, 37, 40, and 41 are directed to whether Krebs anticipates, rather
than renders obvious, the subject matter defined by these claims. Moreover,
Appellant’s arguments fail to show any error on the part of the Examiner in
concluding that the subject matter of claims 2, 6-8, 15, 16, 19, 20, 23, 27-29,
36, 37, 40, and 41 would have been obvious over Krebs.
For example, Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection of claim
2 is improper because “. . . KREBS fail[s] to positively disclose rotating the
inside wall of the drum at at least 20 cm/sec in the circumferential direction
. . .” (Br. 24). Based on this statement, Appellant contends that “the
Examiner has failed to provide an adequate evidentiary basis to support a
rejection of anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)” (emphasis added) (Br.
24-25).
Because Appellant’s arguments are directed to anticipation, not
obviousness, they are unquestionably inadequate to establish error on the
Examiner’s part in making the § 103 rejection under review.
In this regard, it is clear that the Examiner has made no error in
reaching an obviousness conclusion with respect to, for example, claim 2.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013