Ex Parte Sturm et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 30, 2009

10483308 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 30, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ACHIM-PHILLIPP STURM, JURGEN SCHWEIKLE,
ANDREAS CHRISTEL, and FEDERICO INNEREBNER
____________

Appeal 2009-002455
Application 10/483,308
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided:1 June 30, 2009
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
MARK NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the Decided Date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).

Appeal 2009-002455
Application 10/483,308

This is a decision on an appeal from the Primary Examiner’s rejection
of claims 18-28, 30-33, and 35. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6
and 134.3
Appellants’ invention relates to a method of degassing viscous or
viscoelastic flow masses in a multiple-screw extruder having multiple
process chambers. Independent claims 18 and 30 are reproduced below:
18. A method of degassing viscous or viscoelastic flow masses in a
multiple-screw extruder having multiple process chambers, which
are each separated from one another by multiple screws, positioned
parallel to one another, having essentially closely intermeshing
conveyor elements, at least one of the process chambers having at
least one degassing zone having a degassing opening and each of
the process chambers being partially filled with the mass to be
degassed, which is processed in each process chamber and
conveyed through these process chambers using the conveyor
elements of the screws delimiting the particular process chamber,
characterized in that there is at least one connection opening
between the particular process chambers.

30. A ring extruder comprising

a housing;

a core concentrically within said housing; and

a plurality of screws disposed in parallel between said housing and
said core and circumferentially about said core to define an outer
annular process chamber for passage of a material between said
housing and said screws and an inner annular process chamber for
passage of a material between said core and said screws, each pair of

2 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claim 34. (Ans. 2).
3 In rendering this decision, we have considered Appellants’ arguments
presented in the Appeal Brief dated November 29, 2007.

2
Appeal 2009-002455
Application 10/483,308

adjacent screws having at least one thread thereon disposed in
overlapping relation with a thread of the adjacent screw for mutual
stripping of adhering material, said one thread of one of said screws
having a circumferential portion of reduced radius ΔR to define a
transverse passage for a material exchange between said outer
process chamber and said inner process chamber.

Claims 18-28, 30-33, and 35 stand rejected as follows:
A) Claims 30-33, and 35 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
B) Claims 18-28 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Colombo, U.S. Patent No. 2,968,836, patented January 24, 1961.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112, 1st Paragraph, Rejection
The issue presented is: have the Appellants shown that the Examiner
reversibly erred in concluding that the Specification does not provide written
description of “at least one thread,” as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph? We answer this question in the negative.
The Examiner concluded that the originally filed Specification
provides insufficient written description of “at least one thread” as specified
in claims 30-33 and 35. The Examiner specifically stated (Ans 3):
Recitation of "at least one thread" in claim 30, which is not an
original claim, is considered to be new matter. With reference to
prior art Fig. 1, the problem which the instant invention
addresses, that a ring of closely intermeshing double-threaded
screws does not permit mixing of material inside the ring with
material outside the ring, does not arise in the situation with
single threaded screws. The originally filed application therefore
would not convey to one skilled in the art that applicant was in
possession of the “at least one thread” aspect of claim 30.

3
Appeal 2009-002455
Application 10/483,308

Appellants contend that the Specification, specifically original
claim 1, provides sufficient written description to enable disputed features of
the claims. (App. Br. 6).
The disputed portion of claim 1 reads, in most relevant part:
each pair of adjacent screws having at least one thread thereon
disposed in overlapping relation with a thread of the adjacent
screw for mutual stripping of adhering material.
(emphasis added).
Original claim 1 specifies “degassing zones, characterized in that for
at least one conveyor element (7; 9) of at least one screw (5, 7; 5, 9), which
is implemented as a passage screw, in a region around the circumference of
the at least one conveyor element (7; 9).” This disclosure indicates that the
at least one conveyor element comprises at least one screw having a thread
disposed as recited. This disclosure does not indicate that every pair of
adjacent screws has at least one thread that overlaps a thread on the adjacent
screw. Appellants have not pointed to other portions of the Specification
that describe, or that exemplify possession of the invention now claimed.
For the foregoing reasons, as well as those reasons stated in the
Answer, we affirm the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.

The Prior Art Rejection4

4 Appellants have not separately addressed claims 18 and 19. (App. Br. 7-9).
Consequently, claims 18 and 19 will stand or fall together. We select claim
18 as representative of the rejected claims. As indicated below, we have
considered all separate arguments for patentability of the rejected claims.
4
Appeal 2009-002455
Application 10/483,308

The issue presented is: did Appellants identify reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 18-28 under § 102? We answer this question
in the negative. The issue turns on whether Colombo discloses a method of
degassing viscous or viscoelastic flow masses in a multiple-screw extruder
having multiple process chambers, which are each separated from one
another by multiple screws as specified in the appealed claims.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants’ arguments for
patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner
that the claimed subject matter is not patentable within the meaning of § 102
in view of Colombo. Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection
for the reasons stated in the Answer. We add the following.
Regarding claim 18, Appellants contend that the appealed claim is
distinguished over Colombo because Colombo does not disclose a
connection between process chambers and partially filling the process
chambers with a mass to be degassed. Appellants also contend that
Colombo does not disclose multiple process chambers separated from one
another by multiple screws. (App. Br. 7-8).
The Examiner found that Colombo discloses a method of degassing
viscous or viscoelastic flow masses in a multiple-screw extruder having
multiple process chambers, which are each separated from one another by
multiple screws. (Ans. 3-4; Colombo, col. 4, ll. 15-17 and 53-55). The
multiple screw extruder of Colombo comprises process chambers that are
separated from one another in at least some sections along the extruder
conveyance direction (lengthwise direction by screws having closely
intermeshing stripping conveyor elements. (See Colombo, col. 3, ll. 8-45
5
Appeal 2009-002455
Application 10/483,308

and Fig. 3). Colombo discloses that a vacuum can be added to any region of
the screw press in order to remove any gases or vapors that are evolved.
(Colombo, col. 2, ll. 6-9). Regarding the filling of the process chambers,
Colombo discloses the material to being melted and mixed is gradually
increased to an optimum value. This disclosure indicates that portions of the
chambers, which are partially filled with the material, are degassed during
operation of the extruder. (Colombo, col. 2, ll. 1-9).
Regarding claim 20, we agree with the Examiner that the rotational
movement of the threads in the screws continuously changes during the
operation.
Appellants’ arguments regarding claims 21-28 are not persuasive for
the reasons set forth by the Examiner (Ans. 6-7). The Appellants’
arguments in the Brief and Reply Brief do not address the portions of the
Colombo reference cited by the Examiner.
For the foregoing reasons and those presented in the Answer, the
rejection of claims 18-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 30-33, and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 18-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by Colombo is affirmed.

ORDER
The rejections of claims 18-33 and 35 are affirmed.

6
Appeal 2009-002455
Application 10/483,308

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(v).
AFFIRMED

ssl

FRANCIS C. HAND
CARELLA BYRNE BAIN GILFILLAN CECCHI
STEWART & OSTEIN
5 BECKER FARM ROAD
ROSELAND, NJ 07068
7