Appeal No. 96-0978
Application 08/110,324
thin, rigid, flat, or sometimes curved surfaces
radially mounted along an axis that is turned by or
used to turn a fluid.” The American Heritage
Dictionary p. 1336 (2d. ed. 1985) (emphasis added).
Accordingly, by definition, a vane is not an enclosed
tube. [Substitute brief, page 6.]
However, even if we were to agree with the appellants that
the tubular element 30 of Lavanchy cannot be considered to be a
“vane,” claim 1 only broadly sets forth “a vane apparatus
associated with the passageway . . .” (emphasis ours). Thus, the
baffle 38 of Lavanchy can broadly be considered to be a “vane”
(even by the appellants’ definition) that is “associated” with
Lavanchy’s passageway (see Fig. 3). This being the case, we will
sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being clearly anticipated by Lavanchy.
Considering last the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Lavanchy in view of Kulker, the
examiner is of the opinion that the member 30 of Lavanchy is a
baffle which is illustrated in Fig. 3 as extending radially
inwardly of the conveyor hub. Additionally, the answer states
that:
It can be seen from Figure 2 of Lavanchy that the
exterior of the surface in question, 30, is facing
outwardly from the paper and the interior faces into
the paper. The opening 40 is opposite the interior
surface but the surface faces orthogonal to the
direction of rotation. Kulker merely provides the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007