Appeal No. 1997-0863
Application 08/456,001
medium therethrough” and consider that the duct (19) of
Fredriksson constitutes “a duct adjacent said plate for
passage of the second medium therefrom into said orifice,” as
broadly set forth in dependent claim 4 and independent claim 9
on appeal. We reach this conclusion because appellants’ own
disclosure of the “orifice plate” (24), seen in Figure 2 of
the application drawings, includes a cylindrical projecting
portion that, at least in-part, defines the convergent orifice
in the “plate,” and is therefore similar to the cylindrical
“plate” or module (21) at the beginning of the mixer in
Fredriksson (Fig. 2).
In light of the foregoing, we will sustain the rejection
of claims 4 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the
collective teachings of Miyata and Fredriksson. As to claims
5 through 8, 10 through 13 and 23, we note that appellants
have presented no separate arguments as to the patentability
of these additional dependent claims, and that we, therefore,
consider those claims to fall with claims 4 and 9 from which
they depend.
17
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007