Appeal No. 96-0978
Application 08/110,324
obviousness to modify Lavanchy’s surface to face in the
direction of rotation. [Page 8.]
We do not agree with the examiner’s position. Claim 2
expressly requires that the baffle has at least one surface
extending radially inward and “which is proximate to the trailing
edge of the feed slurry passageway but remaining open in the
direction of rotation” (emphasis ours). As the examiner
apparently recognizes, the member 30 of Lavanchy is not open in
the direction of rotation. In an attempt to overcome this
deficiency the examiner resorts to the teachings of Kulker. We
must point out, however, that while Kulker discloses open guide
channels 10, these channels extend outwardly of the hub 6. The
inlets 9 of Kulker do extend radially inwardly; however, these
inlets are closed passageways and thus do not form a baffle which
is open in the direction of rotation.
Since we find nothing in the combined disclosures of
Lavanchy and Kulker which fairly suggests a radially inwardly
extending baffle which is proximate the trailing edge of the feed
slurry passageway and which is open in the direction of rotation,
we will not sustain the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 based on the combined teachings of these two references.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007