Appeal 2007-0566
Application 10/446,875
The only argument presented in the Brief is that Brettschneider ‘930 is
not prior art against the instant Application (Br. 10-11). Brettschneider ‘930
was published July 4, 2002, after the perfected foreign priority date of
May 31, 2002 of the instant Application, and is therefore not available as
prior art against the instant invention. Appellant is thus correct that
Brettschneider ‘930 cannot be relied upon in rejecting Appellant’s claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appellant’s Specification (see Specification [0003] –[004]) indicates
it was known in the art at the time of Appellant’s invention to releasably
attach bars to wires or screens as replaceable wearing parts using screw
elements in devices for treating suspended fiber stock. In fact, Appellant
appears to concede that this is admitted prior art (Br. 13). Moreover,
Appellant’s counsel admitted during oral argument that the attachment of
bars to screens as replaceable wearing parts using screws was the state of the
art at the time of Appellant’s invention. Accordingly, while Brettschneider
‘930 cannot be relied upon as evidence of obviousness, Appellant’s
admissions (the APA and admissions during oral argument) can be relied
upon as evidence of obviousness.
Appellant argues in the Reply Brief that the cited prior art lacks a
teaching or suggestion to combine Gerry with Brettschneider ‘930, because
the Examiner has not shown that Gerry’s axial recesses would be able to
withstand the environment of Brettschneider ‘930 and to permit removal of
the screw when subjected to such extreme wear (Reply Br. 3). Appellant
does not argue, however, that the cited art lacks a teaching or suggestion to
combine Gerry with the APA. In any event, even assuming the arguments
presented for the first time in the Reply Brief are timely, they are not
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013