Appeal No. 97-3199 Application No. 08/273,767 48 and 50, respectively, depicted (Figure 1) and discussed by Knief. Accordingly, and again contrary to the view of appellants (brief, page 12), we find that the subject matter of claim 1 is anticipated by the Knief teaching. The obviousness rejection of claims 2 and 3 We affirm the rejection of each of claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 founded upon the disclosure of Knief. Of particular significance to us, in regard to the content of each of claims 2 and 3, is the explicit teaching by Knief (column 2, lines 53 through 57) that the ratio of total aperture flow area to first tubular portion cross-sectional flow area can be adjusted to optimally minimize the effect on fluid flow rate. Knief (column 4, line 54 to column 5, line 56) further expressly discusses total flow area of the apertures. On the basis of the above teachings, this panel of the board readily perceives that those having ordinary skill in the art well understood aperture flow area as a result effective variable. As such, we make the determination, based upon the Knief teaching considered in its entirety, that obtaining working obstruction ratios, such as those now 8Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007