Appeal No. 1997-0863
Application 08/456,001
Because our reasoning in affirming the above-noted
rejection of claims 4 through 13 and 23 is substantially
different than that relied upon by the examiner in the final
rejection
(Paper No. 25) and the answer (Paper No. 30), we denominate
our affirmance of these claims as a new ground of rejection
under 37 CFR 1.196(b).
With regard to independent claim 14, we observe that this
claim includes a requirement for “a plate disposed
transversely of a first flow of flowable medium, said plate
having at least one convergent orifice [24] for passage of the
first flow of medium therethrough” and also for “a duct
coaxial of said orifice of said plate for expelling a second
flow of flowable medium into said convergent orifice for
mixing with the first flow downstream of said plate.” Again,
for the same reasons as set forth above, we view the
combination of Miyata and Fredriksson as posited by the
18
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007