Appeal No. 1997-1412 Page 18
Application 08/139,888
(31) will flow along the sides of the inner nozzle (3), and
intersect with the gas exiting from the central gas exit as a
matter of basic fluid dynamics.” (Examiner’s Answer at 9.)
We agree with the appellants.
The examiner fails to provide a basis in fact or
technical reasoning to reasonably support a determination that
the function of increasing pressure fluctuation and flow
fluctuation of a main assist gas flow in comparison with a sub
assist gas flow necessarily flows from the teachings of
Hisayoshi. The reference does not teach all three of the
structural features that the appellants use to achieve the
claimed function. Specifically, the outlet of the gas nozzle
formed by TIG welding electrodes 3 is not upstream of that
formed by the walls of the torch 2.
Fig. 2.
For the foregoing reasons, the examiner has not
established a prima facie case of anticipation. Therefore, we
reverse the rejection of claims 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Hisayoshi. Next and last, we address the
obviousness of claims 6 and 23 over Hisayoshi-Babel.
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007