Appeal No. 1999-1577
Application No. 08/537,060
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the
respective positions of appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We reverse.
Turning first to the obviousness-type double patenting
rejection, the examiner recognizes that claims 1-3 of DeFosse
fail to disclose that first, second and third exit ports are
"generally centrally located in said bottom entirely under
said second chamber." The examiner relies on the teaching of
Baker to provide for the deficiency of the claims in this
regard. 1
A review of Baker makes it clear that the plurality of
groups of orifices, 30, 32 and 34 are not all located
"entirely under the second chamber," as claimed. To the
extent one might consider the orifices to be, technically,
1The examiner relies on Ishinaga for a teaching of
downwardly sloped crossflow channels, as per instant claim 7.
However, we question the necessity of Ishinaga in this regard
since claim 3 of DeFosse, itself, discloses such downwardly
sloped channels.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007