Appeal No. 2005-1426 Page 4
Application No. 09/985,050
abruptly outward rather than having a gradual slope. In regard to Borchardt, appellants
argue that the trap dam of Borchardt does not extend away from the axis of rotation, nor
trap low density substances as required by claim 23.
We agree with the appellants and thus we will not sustain this rejection as it is
directed to claim 23. The trap dams described in Borchardt and depicted in Figures 11
and 12 are wells in the outer radial wall of the device that face the axis of rotation. In
addition, Borchardt clearly states that these trap dams are disposed to trap heavy
density substances (col. 13, lines 21 to 36). We will likewise not sustain this rejection
as it is directed to claims 24 to 30 and 32 to 34 as these claims depend from claim 23
and thus include the limitations of claim 23 found not described in the cited prior art.
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claims 23 and 31 to 34 under the
judicially created doctrine of obvious double patenting as being unpatentable over
claims 26, 28 and 31 of Hlavinka in view of Borchardt. The examiner finding that the
above noted claims of Hlavinka recite all the limitations of claim 23 except the recitation
of a trap dam with a downstream portion having a gradual slop once again relies on
Borchardt for this teaching.
We will not sustain this rejection of claim 23, and claims 31 and 34 dependent
thereon, because as we noted above, Borchardt does not describe a trap dam
extending away from the axis of rotation to trap relatively low density substances which
includes a downstream portion having a relatively gradual slope.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007