UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
`AND INTERFERENCES
`____________________
`
`Ex parte RALF BURGER, WERNER LANGE, GERHARD VEH,
`SAMUEL SCHABEL and GEOFFREY G. DUFFY
`____________________
`
`Appeal 2009-004196
`Application 10/419,868
`Technology Center 3600
`____________________
`
`Decided: October 27, 2009
`____________________
`
`
`Before WILLIAM F. PATE III, STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY
`and STEFAN STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`McCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION ON APPEAL
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) from the
`Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 1-14 and 19-37 under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 102(b) (2002) as being anticipated by Chupka (US 4,885,090, issued Dec.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`
`
`
`1/17
`
`
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
`AND INTERFERENCES
`____________________
`
`Ex parte RALF BURGER, WERNER LANGE, GERHARD VEH,
`SAMUEL SCHABEL and GEOFFREY G. DUFFY
`____________________
`
`Appeal 2009-004196
`Application 10/419,868
`Technology Center 3600
`____________________
`
`Decided: October 27, 2009
`____________________
`
`
`Before WILLIAM F. PATE III, STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY
`and STEFAN STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`McCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION ON APPEAL
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) from the
`Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 1-14 and 19-37 under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 102(b) (2002) as being anticipated by Chupka (US 4,885,090, issued Dec.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`
`
`
`1/17
`
`
`
`Appeal 2009-004196
`Application 10/419,868
`
`5, 1989); and finally rejecting claims 1-37 under § 102(b) as being
`anticipated by Shearer (US 6,165,323, issued Dec. 26, 2000). An oral
`hearing was held on October 6, 2009. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 6(b) (2002).
`We sustain the rejections of claims 1-8, 11-14, 23, 25-33 and 36 under
`§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Shearer. We do not sustain the rejections of
`claims 1-14 and 19-37 under § 102(b) as being anticipated by Chupka or the
`rejections of claims 9, 10, 15-22, 24, 34, 35 and 37 under § 102(b) as being
`anticipated by Shearer.
`Claims 1 and 23 are the sole independent claims on appeal. Claim 1
`recites:
`
`A process for wet screening fibrous
`1.
`suspensions with a screen having a plurality of
`screen openings, the process comprising:
`guiding a portion of the fibrous suspension
`passing through the plurality of screen openings,
`which are formed as long holes having inlet widths
`of between 1 and 8 mm, as accepted stock; and
`guiding a portion of the fibrous suspension
`not passing through the long holes separately from
`the accepted stock as rejected material.
`Claim 23 claims an apparatus for wet screening fibrous suspensions
`including at least one screen formed with a plurality of elongated holes such
`that the width of the elongated holes is between 1 and 8 mm at a fibrous
`suspension inlet.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`2
`
`2/17
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Appeal 2009-004196
`Application 10/419,868
`
`
`ISSUES
`The Examiner finds that Chupka discloses the use of a screen plate
`having slots with widths as narrow as 0.002˝ (0.05 mm) up to 0.35˝ (8.9
`mm) or more, a range of widths which encompasses the Appellants’ recited
`range.1 (See Ans. 3, citing Chupka, col. 7, ll. 3-7). Even under a more
`restrictive reading, whereby the Examiner finds that Chupka discloses the
`use of a screen plate having slots formed with a range of slot widths such as
`0.002˝ (0.05 mm) or less up to 0.035˝ (0.89 mm) or more, the Examiner
`finds that Chupka anticipates the subject matter of independent claims 1 and
`23. The Appellants contend that Chupka’s disclosure of slots having widths
`as narrow as 0.002˝ up to 0.35˝ or more is an obvious typographical error;
`that Chupka is at least ambiguous as to the upper limit of the slot width
`(App. Br. 10-13 and 16; Reply Br. 2-3); and that Chupka fails to anticipate
`independent claims 1 and 23 under either reading of Chupka (Reply Br. 2-7).
`The Examiner finds that Shearer discloses guiding a portion of a
`fibrous suspension passing through the plurality of screen openings, and
`guiding a portion of the fibrous suspension not passing through the long
`holes separately from the accepted stock as rejected material. (Ans. 7). The
`Appellants contend that Shearer discloses an extraction screen for use in a
`continuous digester to separate chemically treated wood chips from a
`chemical liquid rather than a screen for wet screening a fibrous suspension
`(App. Br. 25 and 29; Reply Br. 7); that one of ordinary skill in the art would
`not use the term “fibrous suspension” ordinarily to refer to the cellulosic
`fibrous material slurry contacting the pressure side of a screen in a digester
`
`
`1
`The double-prime symbol, “ ˝ ,” is used here, as in Chupka, as an
`abbreviation for inches.
`
`3
`
`3/17
`
`
`
`Appeal 2009-004196
`Application 10/419,868
`
`(App. Br. 26); that Shearer fails to disclose guiding any material other than a
`liquid through the holes of Shearer’s screen (App. Br. 26 and 29; Reply Br.
`8); and that Shearer does not describe removing any portion of the material
`being screened as rejects (App. Br. 26 and 30; Reply Br. 9).
`The Appellants argue dependent claims 2-8, 12-14, 25 and 27-36
`separately, contending that Shearer “fails to positively disclose the recited
`hole dimensions, arrangements, and orientations set forth” in those claims.
`(App. Br. 31). The Appellants also argue claims 9, 10 and 24 separately,
`contending that Shearer fails to disclose a scraper. (App. Br. 32). The
`Appellants also argue claims 11, 12, 26 and 27 separately, contending that
`Shearer fails to disclose a cylindrical basket. (Id.) The Appellants argue
`claim 19 separately, contending that Shearer fails to disclose guiding a
`portion of a fibrous suspension comprising slushed recovered paper. (App.
`Br. 33). The Appellants also argue claims 20-22 and 37 separately,
`contending that Shearer fails to disclose a pressurized screen. (Id.) Finally,
`the Appellants argue claims 15-18 separately, contending that Shearer fails
`to disclose guiding a portion of a processed fibrous suspension, that is, a
`suspension having the consistency or screenable contaminants content
`recited in those claims. (Id.) The Appellants do not explain why the
`Examiner’s findings that Shearer discloses these features are erroneous.
`This appeal turns on ten issues:
`Have the Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in
`finding that Chupka discloses either a screen formed with a
`plurality of elongated holes such that the width of the elongated
`holes is between 1 and 8 mm at a fibrous suspension inlet, or a
`step of guiding a portion of a fibrous suspension passing
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`4
`
`4/17
`
`
`
`Appeal 2009-004196
`Application 10/419,868
`
`
`through a plurality of screen openings, which are formed as
`long holes having inlet widths of between 1 and 8 mm, as
`accepted stock?
`Have the Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in
`finding that Shearer discloses guiding a portion of a fibrous
`suspension passing through the plurality of screen openings,
`and guiding a portion of the fibrous suspension not passing
`through the long holes separately from the accepted stock as
`rejected material?
`Have the Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in
`finding that Shearer discloses the hole dimensions and
`arrangements recited in claims 2-8, 30-33 and 36?
`Have the Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in
`finding that Shearer discloses the ratios of hole length to hole
`width recited in claims 34 and 35?
`Have the Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in
`finding that Shearer discloses moving a scraper past a screen as
`recited in claims 9 and 10 or a scraper as recited in claims 24
`and 25?
`Have the Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in
`finding that Shearer discloses a screen formed as a cylindrical
`screen basket as recited in claims 11-14 and 26-29 as well as
`the hole orientations recited in claims 12-14 and 27-29?
`Have the Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in
`finding that Shearer discloses guiding a portion of a fibrous
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`5
`
`5/17
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`Appeal 2009-004196
`Application 10/419,868
`
`
`suspension comprising slushed recovered paper as recited in
`claim 19?
`Have the Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in
`finding that Shearer discloses a screen structured and arranged
`as a pressurized screen as recited in claims 20-22 and 37?
`Have the Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in
`finding that Shearer discloses guiding a suspension having a
`consistency of at least 2% as recited in claim 15, or of at least
`3% as recited in claim 16?
`Have the Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in
`finding that Shearer discloses guiding a suspension having a
`screenable contaminants content of at least 0.3% as recited in
`claim 17, or of at least 0.5% as recited in claim 18?
`
`
`FINDINGS OF FACT
`The record supports the following findings of fact (“FF”) by a
`preponderance of the evidence.
`1.
`Chupka discloses a screening cylinder for paper stock. The
`screening cylinder includes a plurality of holes or slots. (Chupka, col. 2, ll.
`37-42).
`Chupka teaches the use of laser cutting to form the holes or
`2.
`slots in the screening cylinder. (Chupka, col. 6, ll. 8-11). At one point,
`Chupka states that laser cutting “has the advantage of permitting the
`formation of slots over a substantially wide range of slot widths, such as
`0.002˝ [approximately 0.05 mm] or less up to 0.035˝ [approximately 0.89
`mm] or more.” (Chupka, col. 6, ll. 39-42).
`
`6
`
`6/17
`
`
`
`Appeal 2009-004196
`Application 10/419,868
`
`
`At a later point, Chupka states that the “widths may be as
`3.
`narrow as 0.002˝ up to 0.35˝ [approximately 8.9 mm] or more, as desired for
`a particular screen.” (Chupka, col. 7, ll. 5-7).
`4.
`The upper bound of the range described in the passage quoted
`in FF 3 differs from the upper bound of the range described in the passage
`quoted in FF2 only by the omission of a leading zero immediately before the
`two significant figures of the width.
`5.
`Chupka does not provide any example of a screening cylinder
`having an opening with an inlet or pressure-side width greater than 0.035˝.
`(See, e.g., Chupka, col. 6, ll. 45-63). Although Chupka describes a screening
`cylinder having a slot with an exit opening width as wide as 0.040˝
`(approximately 1.0 mm) (see Chupka, col. 6, ll. 55-58), the context indicates
`that Chupka intended to provide the example to illustrate the possibility of
`tapering the walls of the slot rather than to suggest a slot inlet width greater
`than 0.035˝.
`Chupka does not indicate that a screening cylinder having slots
`6.
`with inlet widths greater than 0.035˝ would be desirable in any application
`described or suggested in the reference.
`7.
`Chupka’s statement that the widths of the slots may be “up to
`0.35˝ or more” was an obvious typographical error which would not have
`put one of ordinary skill in the art in possession of a process for wet
`screening fibrous suspensions including a step of guiding a portion of a
`fibrous suspension passing through a plurality of screen openings which are
`formed as long holes having inlet widths of between 1 and 8 mm.
`Shearer discloses a screen assembly 10 for use in a digester.
`8.
`(Shearer, col. 2, l. 66 – col. 3, l. 2).
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`7
`
`7/17
`
`
`
`Appeal 2009-004196
`Application 10/419,868
`
`
`Shearer’s screen assembly 10 includes a plurality of screens.
`9.
`Each screen includes a frame 12 and a metal screen plate 13. (Shearer, col.
`3, ll. 17-19). Each screen plate 13 has a plurality of slots 17. (Shearer, col.
`3, ll. 25-29). Figure 2 of Shearer depicts the slots as being elongated.
`10. The width of each of the slots 17 at the inner surface of a screen
`plate 21 is between about 2-13 mm, preferably between about 3-9 mm.
`(Shearer, col. 4, ll. 8-10).
`11. Shearer describes the digester as “having an inlet for
`comminuted cellulosic fibrous material (such [as] wood chips) at the top,
`and an outlet for produced chemical cellulose pulp (e.g., kraft or sulfite pulp)
`at the bottom.” (Shearer, col. 3, ll. 5-9).
`12. Elsewhere, Shearer discloses that the inner surfaces of the
`screen plates 13 are contacted by “cellulosic fibrous material slurry” in the
`digester. (E.g., Shearer, col. 8, ll. 4-9 (claim 14)).
`13. Shearer discloses that one portion of the cellulosic fibrous
`material slurry, namely, the comminuted cellulosic fibrous material (such as
`wood chips), engages the inner surfaces 21 of the screen plates 13. Another
`portion of the cellulosic fibrous material slurry, including a portion of the
`suspending liquid, is withdrawn through the slots 17 to the outer surfaces 22
`of the screen plates 13 by pumps. (Shearer, col. 4, ll. 1-5).
`14. The Examiner has made specific findings in support of the
`rejections of each of claims 2-8, 11-18 and 26-36. The Examiner also has
`provided a citation to the disclosure of Shearer supporting the finding that
`Shearer discloses the limitations separately recited in each of these claims.
`(See Ans. 7-10). Although the Appellants dispute these findings, they
`provide no arguments explaining why any of the Examiner’s citations fails
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`8
`
`8/17
`
`
`
`Appeal 2009-004196
`Application 10/419,868
`
`to support the Examiner’s findings. Therefore, we adopt the Examiner’s
`findings in support of the rejections of claims 2-8, 11-14, 26-33 and 36 on
`pages 7-10 of the Examiner’s Answer.
`
`
`PRINCIPLES OF LAW
`Anticipation is an issue fact. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477
`(Fed. Cir. 1997).
`
`Rejection for anticipation or lack of novelty
`requires, as the first step of the inquiry, that all the
`elements of the claimed invention be described in a
`single reference. . . . Further, the reference must
`describe the applicant’s claimed invention
`sufficiently to have placed a person of ordinary
`skill in the field of the invention in possession of
`it.
`In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (citations omitted).
`
`
`ANALYSIS
`Claim 1 recites a method including the step of guiding a portion of a
`fibrous suspension passing through a plurality of screen openings formed as
`long holes having inlet widths of between 1 and 8 mm. Claim 23 recites an
`apparatus including at least one screen formed with a plurality of elongated
`holes such that the width of the elongated holes is between 1 and 8 mm at a
`fibrous suspension inlet.
`Chupka discloses a screening cylinder. (FF 1). At one point, Chupka
`describes a screen with slots having inlet widths of 0.002˝ (0.05 mm) or less
`up to 0.035˝ (0.89 mm) or more. (FF 2). This range of slot widths does not
`overlap or even meet the slot inlet width range of between 1 and 8 mm
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`9
`
`9/17
`
`
`
`Appeal 2009-004196
`Application 10/419,868
`
`recited in claims 1 and 23. Chupka’s disclosure that the slot inlet width
`might be more than 0.89 mm does not necessarily imply that the slot width
`would be as large as 1 mm. Consequently, Chupka’s disclosure of a screen
`with slots having inlet widths of 0.002˝ or less up to 0.035˝ does not meet
`the slot inlet width limitations of claims 1 and 23.
`A later passage of Chupka appears at first glance to describe slots as
`narrow as 0.002˝ up to 0.35˝ [approximately 8.9 mm] or more. (See FF 3).
`In view of the difference between the two ranges and the context provided
`by the disclosure of Chupka as a whole (see FF 4-6), one of ordinary skill in
`the art would have interpreted the reference to an upper bound of 0.35˝ as
`being an obvious typographical error (FF 7). Since no other passage in
`Chupka refers to slots having inlet widths greater than 0.035˝ (FF 5), the
`disclosure of Chupka as a whole would not have put one of ordinary skill in
`the art in possession of a screen formed with a plurality of elongated holes
`such that the width of the elongated holes is between 1 and 8 mm at a
`fibrous suspension inlet. See In re Yale, 434 F.2d 666, 668-69 (CCPA 1970)
`(holding that an obvious typographical error in the statement of a chemical
`formula would not have put one of ordinary skill in the art in possession of
`the compound identified by the formula). Neither would Chupka have put
`one of ordinary skill in the art in possession of a method including a step of
`guiding a portion of a fibrous suspension passing through the openings of
`such a screen as accepted stock.
`The Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
`Chupka anticipates independent claim 1, independent claim 23 or any of the
`dependent claims on appeal. On the other hand, the Appellants have not
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`10
`
`10/17
`
`
`
`Appeal 2009-004196
`Application 10/419,868
`
`shown that the Examiner erred in finding that Shearer anticipates claims 1
`and 23.
` Shearer’s screen assembly 10 is capable of wet screening fibrous
`suspensions. In particular, the Appellants do not formally define the term
`“fibrous suspension” in the Specification. One of ordinary skill in the art
`would understand the term “slurry” to mean “a suspension of insoluble
`material in water,” G.A. Smook, HANDBOOK FOR PULP & PAPER
`TECHNOLOGISTS 394 (Jt. Exec. Comm. of the Vocational Educ. Comms. of
`the Pulp & Paper Indus. 1982). Giving the term “fibrous suspension” its
`broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with both the ordinary usage of
`the term by one of ordinary skill in the art and the usage of the term in the
`Specification, see In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379
`(Fed. Cir. 2007); In re American Acad. of Science Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359,
`1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004), the term “fibrous suspension” is sufficiently broad to
`include the “cellulosic fibrous material slurry” which contacts the inner
`surfaces of the screens of Shearer’s screen assembly 10 when the screen
`assembly is installed in a digester (see FF 12 and 13). The Appellants have
`identified nothing in the Specification disclaiming an interpretation of the
`term “fibrous suspension” sufficiently broad to encompass Shearer’s
`cellulosic fibrous material slurry.
`Shearer’s screen assembly is capable of wet screening the cellulosic
`fibrous material suspension. The Appellants do not formally define the term
`“wet screening” in the Specification. Neither do the Appellants provide
`evidence sufficient to show that the term “wet screening” has a specialized
`meaning in the art to which the subject matter of claims 1 and 23 pertains.
`The ordinary usage of the term “screen” is sufficiently broad to include
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`11
`
`11/17
`
`
`
`Appeal 2009-004196
`Application 10/419,868
`
`“pass[ing] (as coal, gravel, or paper stock) through a screen in order to
`separate one part from another.” WEBSTER’S THIRD NEW INT’L DICTIONARY
`2040 (G&C Merriam Co. 1971)(“screen,” entry 2, def. 4a(1)). Hence, the
`ordinary usage of “wet screening” is sufficiently broad to include passing a
`part of a liquid suspension through a screen in order to separate one part of
`the liquid suspension from another. The Appellants have identified nothing
`in the Specification disclaiming an interpretation of the term “wet screening”
`of this breadth.
`When Shearer’s screen assembly 10 is installed in a conventional
`digester, pumps guide a portion of the cellulosic fibrous material slurry
`passing through the screen openings 17 to the outer surfaces 22 of the
`screens 13. (FF 13). Shearer’s description of the conventional digester as
`having an inlet for comminuted cellulosic fibrous material at the top, and an
`outlet for produced chemical cellulose pulp at the bottom (FF 11),
`necessarily implies that the portion of the cellulosic fibrous material slurry
`not passing through the screens is guided toward the bottom of the digester.
`Shearer’s screen assembly 10 wet screens the cellulosic fibrous material
`slurry in the sense that the screens 13 of Shearer’s screen assembly 10 are
`arranged to separate portions of the cellulosic fibrous material slurry passing
`through the screens from materials not passing through the screens.
`As the Examiner points out, the meaning of the terms “accepted
`stock,” “accepted portions” and “rejected material” as used in claims 1 and
`23 are dependent on the use to which the method of claim 1 or the apparatus
`of claim 23 is to be put. None of these terms is formally defined in the
`Specification. Neither do the Appellants provide evidence sufficient to show
`that these terms have limited, specialized meanings in the art to which the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`12
`
`12/17
`
`
`
`Appeal 2009-004196
`Application 10/419,868
`
`claimed subject matter pertains. In the context of the present appeal, the
`broadest reasonable interpretation of the terms “accepted stock,” “accepted
`portions” and “rejected material” is dependent on the uses to which each
`component separated from the screened fibrous suspension might be put.
`Assuming for purposes of this appeal only that no cellulose fiber pulp
`would pass through the holes of Shearer’s screen assembly 10 were the
`assembly placed in a conventional digester, the “black liquor” which did
`pass through the holes would be an “accepted stock” or “accepted portion,”
`that is, a useful raw material, for fuel use or tall oil recovery. In this sense,
`the brown stock which exited through the bottom of the digester would be a
`“rejected material.”
`Therefore, the Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in
`finding that Shearer discloses guiding a portion of a fibrous suspension
`passing through the plurality of screen openings as accepted stock and
`guiding another portion of the fibrous suspension not passing through the
`long holes separately from the accepted stock as rejected material. In
`addition, the Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in finding
`that Shearer discloses the elements of claims 2-14, 26-33 and 36. (FF 14).
`The Examiner finds with respect to the rejections of claims 6 and 7
`that column 7, line 5 et seq. supports the finding that Shearer discloses a
`ratio of hole length to hole width between 2 and 20 or, more specifically,
`between 2 and 10. (Ans. 3). The Appellants, although they dispute these
`findings, provide no explanation why any of the findings might be
`erroneous. Claims 34 and 35 depend directly from claim 23 and, like claims
`6 and 7, separately recite a ratio of hole length to hole width between 2 and
`20 or, more specifically, between 2 and 10. The Examiner’s uncontested
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`13
`
`13/17
`
`
`
`Appeal 2009-004196
`Application 10/419,868
`
`findings concerning the disclosure of the subject matter of claims 6 and 7
`also support the Examiner’s finding that Shearer discloses the subject matter
`of claims 34 and 35.
`On the other hand, with respect to claims 9, 10, 24 and 25, the
`Examiner provides no citation to the disclosure of Shearer, or any technical
`reasoning, which might support the finding that Shearer inherently discloses
`clearing the screen assembly 10 by moving a scraper past the screen
`assembly (see Ans. 8). No basis for the Examiner’s finding of inherency is
`apparent.
`The Examiner’s citation of paragraphs 0006 and 0007 of the
`Appellants’ Specification does not support the Examiner’s findings that
`Shearer’s screen assembly 10 inherently screens fibrous suspensions of the
`consistencies recited in claims 15 and 16 or the contaminants content recited
`in claims 17 and 18. Paragraphs 0006-07 of the Specification do not
`describe screening within a conventional digester. Once again, no basis is
`apparent for the Examiner’s finding that Shearer inherently describes the
`subject matter of claims 15-18.
`With respect to claims 19-22 and 37, the Examiner provides no
`reasoning to explain how the Abstract of Shearer supports the Examiner’s
`findings that Shearer discloses either the use of the screen assembly 10 to
`screen slushed recovered paper or as a pressure screen. No basis for these
`findings is apparent from the Abstract.
`
`
`CONCLUSIONS
`The Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
`Chupka discloses either a screen formed with a plurality of elongated holes
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`14
`
`14/17
`
`
`
`Appeal 2009-004196
`Application 10/419,868
`
`such that the width of the elongated holes is between 1 and 8 mm at a
`fibrous suspension inlet, or a step of guiding a portion of a fibrous
`suspension passing through a plurality of screen openings, which are formed
`as long holes having inlet widths of between 1 and 8 mm, as accepted stock.
`Therefore, the Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
`claims 1-14 and 19-37 under § 102(b) as being anticipated by Chupka.
`The Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
`Shearer discloses guiding a portion of a fibrous suspension passing through
`the plurality of screen openings as accepted stock, and guiding a portion of
`the fibrous suspension not passing through the long holes separately from
`the accepted stock as rejected material. Therefore, the Appellants have not
`shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 and 23 under § 102(b)
`as being anticipated by Shearer.
`The Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
`Shearer discloses the hole dimensions and arrangements recited in claims 2-
`8, 30-33 and 36. Therefore, the Appellants have not shown that the
`Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2-8, 30-33 and 36 under § 102(b) as
`being anticipated by Shearer.
`The Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in finding that
`Shearer discloses the ratios of hole length to hole width recited in claims 34
`and 35. Therefore, the Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred
`in rejecting claims 34 and 35 under § 102(b) as being anticipated by Shearer.
`The Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
`Shearer discloses moving a scraper past a screen as recited in claims 9 and
`10 or a scraper as recited in claims 24 and 25. Therefore, the Appellants
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`15
`
`15/17
`
`
`
`Appeal 2009-004196
`Application 10/419,868
`
`have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 9, 10, 24 and 25
`under § 102(b) as being anticipated by Shearer.
`The Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
`Shearer discloses a screen formed as a cylindrical screen basket as recited in
`claims 11-14 and 26-29 as well as the hole orientations recited in claims 12-
`14 and 27-29. Therefore, the Appellants have not shown that the Examiner
`erred in rejecting claims 11-14 and 26-29 under § 102(b) as being
`anticipated by Shearer.
`The Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
`Shearer discloses guiding a portion of a fibrous suspension comprising
`slushed recovered paper as recited in claim 19. Therefore, the Appellants
`have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 19 under § 102(b) as
`being anticipated by Shearer.
`The Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
`Shearer discloses a screen structured and arranged as a pressurized screen as
`recited in claims 20-22 and 37. Therefore, the Appellants have shown that
`the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 20-22 and 37 under § 102(b) as being
`anticipated by Shearer.
`The Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
`Shearer discloses guiding a suspension having a consistency of at least 2%
`as recited in claim 15 or of at least 3% as recited in claim 16. Therefore, the
`Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 15 and 16
`under § 102(b) as being anticipated by Shearer.
`The Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
`Shearer discloses guiding a suspension having a screenable contaminants
`content of at least 0.3% as recited in claim 17 or of at least 0.5% as recited in
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`16
`
`16/17
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`Appeal 2009-004196
`Application 10/419,868
`
`claim 18. Therefore, the Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in
`rejecting claims 17 and 18 under § 102(b) as being anticipated by Shearer.
`
`DECISION
`We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-8, 11-14, 23,
`26-36.
`We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 9, 10, 15-22,
`24, 25 and 37.
`No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
`this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
`§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2007).
`
`
`AFFIRMED-IN-PART
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`mls
`
`GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C.
`1950 ROLAND CLARKE PLACE
`RESTON, VA 20191
`
`17
`
`17/17
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
