Appeal No. 96-3376
Application 08/164,889
prior art. We find this argument to be unpersuasive, because
the embodiment of the mixer seen in Figures 7 and 8 of Carre is
clearly suggestive of the claimed subject matter as broadly
defined in claims 28, 31 and 32 on appeal.
In particular, we point to the ring (2) located
intermediate the stator members (8) in Figures 7 and 8 of Carre,
noting that it is substantially concentric with the base of the
rotor and extends outwardly, in the axial flow direction, from
the base. The ring (2) is disclosed as being spaced from the
stator members by a distance (h) that is in the range of 1 to 30
millimeters, preferably between 2 and 10 millimeters (Carre,
col. 3, lines 56-58). Since 1 inch equals 25 mm, it is apparent
that this spacing range encompasses both the "0.5 inches or
less" range of claim 31 and the "0.25 inches or less" range of
claim 28. With regard to the length of the ring (2), seen best
in Figure 8 of Carre, it is stated in column 3, lines 59-63, that
the length of the gap, and thus the length of the ring in the
mixer of Figure 8, should exceed (h) by several times "suitably
between 3 and 25 times, preferably between 5 and 20 times."
Accordingly, the length of the ring (2) in Figure 8 of Carre may
be between 3 and 750 mm, or up to 30 inches (750 mm divided by
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007