Appeal 2007-0566
Application 10/446,875
rejection of claim 26. Accordingly, claim 26 is not involved in this appeal.
We leave it to the Examiner to clarify the status of claim 26 upon return of
the Application to the Technology Center. We have jurisdiction over this
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
Appellant’s counsel, Robert W. Mueller, presented oral argument in
this appeal on March 6, 2007.
Appellant’s invention involves a process for the releasable attachment
of wearing parts in devices for treating suspended fiber stock using screw
elements having at least one threaded part and at least one turned part, the
turned part being provided with at least two recesses for receiving a torsion
applying tool (Specification [0050]). The recesses extend sufficiently deep
into the turned part that they can be engaged even after a substantial portion
of the turned part has been worn away (Specification [0052]).
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Gerry US 452,640 May 19, 1891
Rudolph US 3,073,206 Jan. 15, 1963
Luke US 5,199,838 Apr. 06, 1993
Brettschneider ‘930 DE 100 65 930 A1 Jul. 04, 2002
Appellant’s admitted prior art (the APA) (Specification [0003] – [0004])
Appellant seeks review of the Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) of claims 1, 2, 6, 9, 11-16, 20-23, 25, 30-32, and 37-42 as
unpatentable over Brettschneider ‘930 in conjunction with the APA in view
of Gerry, claims 3-5, 8, 10, 24, 28, and 29 as unpatentable over
Brettschneider ‘930 in conjunction with the APA in view of Gerry and Luke,
and claims 7, 17-19, 27, and 33-36 as unpatentable over Brettschneider ‘930
in conjunction with the APA in view of Gerry and Rudolph.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013