Appeal 2007-2193
Application 10/816,369
We have considered all of Appellants’ arguments and are unpersuaded
for the reasons below.
Yip discloses a vacuum cleaner having a “generally square opening
20” that leads via frustoconical passage 22 to a rear opening 24 (Yip, col. 1,
ll. 64-67, col. 2, ll. 12-25).
The Examiner determines that the arc-shaped object visible through
lattice 88 in Yip’s Figure 3 is a circular exit orifice (Answer 6, 10).
Moreover, the Examiner, responding to Appellants’ argument that a
difference in shading would be used in Yip’s Figure 1 if the exit orifice were
circular, states that Yip’s Figure 3 is relied upon to show the circular exit
orifice because Yip’s Figure 1 is a two-dimensional, cross-sectional view of
the vacuum cleaner (i.e., orthogonal to the cleaner) (Answer 10). The
Examiner contends that regardless of the shading, Yip’s two dimensional,
cross-sectional view shown in Figure 1 would not be able to convey the
shape of the exit orifice (Answer 10).
The Examiner further indicates that Yip uses a centrifugal impeller to
provide the vacuum, which is composed of an impeller sandwiched between
two end plates (Answer 10). The Examiner further reasons that the end plate
of the impeller that mates with rear opening 24 would have a circular
opening to avoid air disturbance (e.g., turbulence) that would be associated
with a square or rectangular opening (Answer 11).
We agree with the Examiner’s findings regarding Yip’s disclosure.
Like the Examiner, we find that Yip’s rear opening 24 (i.e., exit orifice) is
circular. Accordingly, Yip discloses Appellants’ claim feature of an exit
orifice having a “substantially circular cross-section.”
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013