Appeal No. 1997-0863
Application 08/456,001
Moreover, even if only the small chambers (15) are viewed as
the mixer elements in Miyata, we note that sets of the small
chambers (15) associated with each pairing of disks (16, 17)
can be viewed as being “mixer elements” and that a plurality
of such mixer elements are “disposed along a longitudinal
axis” of the second mixer (1b), i.e., so that the mixer (1b)
of Miyata has six sets of such “mixer elements” disposed along
the longitudinal axis thereof. Thus, we do not see that this
limitation in claim 1 in any way distinguishes over the mixing
device of Miyata.
Given the foregoing, we must agree with the examiner that
the static mixing device of appellants’ claim 1 on appeal is
anticipated by the static mixing device of Miyata.
Accordingly, the examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Miyata is sustained.
Regarding claims 2, 3, 22 and 30 which depend from claim
1, we note that appellants have grouped claims 2, 3 and 22
along with claim 1, while claim 30 has been grouped separately
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007