Appeal No. 2005-2404
Application No. 10/119,283
THE REJECTIONS
The claims stand rejected as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as follows: claims 1-15 over Kleven ‘297 in view of Nowacki,
claims 17 and 21 over Kleven ‘297 in view of Wiklund, claims 18
and 19 over Kleven ‘297 in view of Wiklund and Kleven ‘568, and
claim 20 over Kleven ‘297 in view of Nowacki and Kleven ‘568.
OPINION
We affirm the rejections of claims 1-15 and 20, and reverse
the rejections of claims 17-19 and 21.
Claims 1-15 and 20
The appellants state that claims 1-15 and 20 stand or fall
together (brief, page 8). We therefore limit our discussion to
one claim in this group, i.e., claim 1. See In re Ochiai,
71 F.3d 1565, 1566 n.2, 37 USPQ2d 1127, 1129 n.2 (Fed. Cir.
1995); 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(1997).
Kleven ‘297 discloses a differential pressure flow
plate (102) which has a central opening (112) and is insertable
between pipe flanges (54, 56).
Nowacki discloses an air flow sensing venturi device having
a flow restriction with four axially extending cylindrical
bores (40) which, Nowacki states, “have been found to produce
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007