Appeal No. 1999-1577
Application No. 08/537,060
"entirely under the second chamber" because they are located
below the chamber, albeit some orifices are off to the side,
continuance of the instant claim language requires the exit
ports also to be "spaced from all areas under said first
chamber and under said third chamber." This claim language
precludes any of the orifices, or exit ports, of Baker from
being located in an area below the first and/or third
chambers. Since at least the leftmost and rightmost orifices
of Baker are, indeed, located beneath areas of the first and
third chambers, Baker does not suggest the exit ports
"generally centrally located in said bottom entirely under
said second chamber and spaced from all areas under said first
chamber and under said third chamber," as claimed. Ishinaga
is of no help in this regard.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims
6 and 7 under obviousness-type double patenting.
We now turn to the rejection of claims 6 and 7 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007