Appeal No. 1998-0023
Application 08/470,374
unpatentable over Miyata in view of Gillner. Again,
appellants have not specifically argued the examiner’s
combination of Miyata and Gillner, but have instead pointed
out specific limitations in the claimed subject matter that
they believe are not taught or suggested in the applied
references. More specifically, in arguing independent claims
21 and 23 (brief, page 20), appellants have again urged that
Miyata does not disclose a two-stage mixer in which the cross-
sectional flow area of the second mixer is greater than that
of the first mixer and in which the static mixer elements in
the second stage are disposed along the longitudinal axis of
the mixer or arranged longitudinally over a length of the
second mixer. For the same reasons as set forth above
regarding Miyata as applied against independent claim 17, we
find these arguments to be unpersuasive of any error on the
examiner’s part here. Thus, we will sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claims 21 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As a
result of its grouping with claim 23, we view claim 24 as
falling with the independent claim from which it depends and
will therefore also sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007