Appeal No. 1997-0863
Application 08/456,001
examiner to be flawed and to constitute merely a hindsight
reconstruction of Miyata so as to arrive at appellants’
claimed subject matter. Accordingly, the examiner’s rejection
of independent claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and of
dependent claim 24, will not be sustained.
Moreover, even with our own understanding of the
collective teachings of these applied references and their
combination as we have articulated above, we view the subject
matter of appellants’ claim 14, and claim 24 which depends
therefrom, as being unobvious. Nothing in Miyata or
Fredriksson teaches or suggests a duct for the introduction of
the second flow of flowable medium wherein the duct is
“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,” as is
seen in Figure 2 of the application drawings (duct 22) and as
set forth in claim 14 on appeal. In this regard, we observe
that the second flow of flowable medium (air) enters the
distributor chamber (17) of Fredriksson from the duct (19)
19
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007