Appeal 2007-0566
Application 10/446,875
The Examiner provides reasoning in support of the rejections in the
Answer (mailed February 16, 2006) . Appellant presents opposing
arguments in the Brief (filed December 9, 2005) and Reply Brief (filed April
17, 2006).
OPINION
With respect to the rejection 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, Appellant argues all the claims together as a
single group. Therefore, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii), we
have selected claim 1 as the representative claim to decide the appeal of this
rejection, with claims 2, 6, 9, 11-16, 20-23, 25, 30-32, and 37-42 standing or
falling with claim 1.
In making the rejection the Examiner contends that Brettschneider
‘930 and the APA establish that it was known in the art at the time of
Appellant’s invention to couple bars as replaceable wearing parts to wire
structures, e.g., screens, with screw elements, in apparatus for treating paper.
The Examiner further contends that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to replace the turning part of the prior art screw
element with a turning part as disclosed by Gerry having a configuration
with at least two recesses because Gerry teaches the equivalence of a two
recess configuration and a more conventional single straight slot
configuration. The Examiner further points out the two recess configuration
is superior in its ability to receive torque from a torque transmitting member
(Answer 4).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013