Appeal No. 1998-0023
Application 08/470,374
Next, we turn to the prior art rejection of claims 17
through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Miyata in view of Fredriksson and Gillner. The findings of
the examiner regarding the applied references and his
statements regarding the combination of those references is
set forth on pages 3 and 4 of the answer. Appellants have not
specifically disputed the examiner’s combination of the
applied references, but have instead focused on the perceived
deficiencies of Miyata alone in relation to the claimed
subject matter.
As to independent claim 17 on appeal, appellants urge
(brief, pages 9-19) that Miyata does not disclose or teach a
method of admixing two flowable media wherein the static mixer
used for such mixing is one which includes first and second
mixers sized and designed so that the cross-sectional flow
area of the second mixer is greater than the cross-sectional
flow area of the first mixer. In addition, appellants argue
that the static mixer apparatus of Miyata does not have static
mixer elements along which the media must flow which are
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007