Appeal 2007-4185
Application 10/743,097
result of not only the toner but the mesh sizes of the sieves, the time of
vibration, the amplitude of vibration, and the number of sieves, and the
manner in which the value is calculated” (id.). In this respect, the Examiner
finds the amount of toner, the mesh sizes of the screens in the sieve, the
vibration timer period and amplitude stated in the disclosure as “for
example” and would be seen as non-limiting by one of ordinary skill in the
art (id. 4 and 5). The Examiner contends the Specification provides no
guidance in these respects and thus, it is unclear if different screen sizes can
be used, which along with different vibration times and intensities would
affect the amount of toner remaining on the screens (id. 4 and 5). The
Examiner explains “the length of time of shaking and intensity would affect
the amount of toner remaining on each screen because more vigorous or
lengthy shaking would break apart more toner aggregates while less shaking
would not” (id.).
The Examiner contends that contrary to Appellants’ position that the
“values of cohesion are calculated by a well-known formula,” there is no
formula disclosed in the Specification and thus, it “is not clear from the
specification . . . how the cohesion value is determined when less than all of
the toner is retained on the top screen” (Answer 5, citing Br. 5). In
considering the disclosure at col. 48, ll. 21-44, of Combes, which discloses
“[t]he percent cohesion is calculated as follows: % cohesion = 50A + 30B
+10C,” wherein “[t]he equation applies a weighting factor proportionally to
screen size” and the screen sizes are specified,2 the Examiner finds Combes
provides further evidence the claims are indefinite (Answer 6). The
2 The Examiner reproduces the passage from Combes (Answer 6).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013