Ex parte FLEISCHLI et al. - Page 3




                     Appeal No. 1997-0863                                                                                                                                              
                     Application 08/456,001                                                                                                                                            


                     Miyata                                                                     58-133823                                  Aug.  9,                                    
                     1983 (Japanese Kokai)1                                                                                                                                            
                     Claims 1 through 3, 22 and 25 through 31 stand rejected                                                                                                           
                     under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Miyata.                                                                                                          


                     Claims 4 through 14, 23 and 24 stand rejected under                                                                                                               
                     35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Miyata in view of                                                                                                      
                     Fredriksson.                                                                                                                                                      


                     Claims 1, 9 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,                                                                                                          
                     first paragraph, as being directed to a specification which,                                                                                                      
                     as originally filed, does not support the invention as now                                                                                                        
                     claimed. More particularly, the examiner urges that claims 1,                                                                                                     
                     9 and 14 all recite “...cross-sectional flow areas... taken                                                                                                       
                     generally perpendicular to the direction of flow through said                                                                                                     
                     respective mixers...,” without support in the specification.2                                                                                                     

                                1 Our understanding of this foreign language document is                                                                                               
                     based on a translation prepared for the U.S. Patent and                                                                                                           
                     Trademark Office. A copy of that translation is attached to                                                                                                       
                     this decision.                                                                                                                                                    
                                2 This is a new ground of rejection added in the                                                                                                       
                     examiner’s answer and further clarified in the supplemental                                                                                                       
                     examiner’s answer (Paper No. 36, page 2) as being applicable                                                                                                      
                     “specifically to claims 1, 9 and 14.” While the examiner has                                                                                                      
                                                                                          3                                                                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007