Appeal No. 96-1883
Application 08/078,380
acute angles of less than 30E” (page 2), which includes the 20
degree angle specified in claim 28 as well, we might add, as the
lesser angles recited in claims 29 through 31. Thus, it would
appear to us from this statement that one of ordinary skill in
the art would have found it prima facie obvious to utilize the
angles set forth in the appellants’ claims in this type of
article-carrying device, depending upon the results desired, such
as the distance the article is carried from the working surface
and the speed at which it is moved. The same rationale applies
to the ratio between the length and width of the openings. In
arriving at this conclusion, we note that the appellants have not
disclosed in their specification or urged in their Brief that the
values set forth in claim 28 are critical in that they produce
unexpected results. Rather, they distinguished their invention
on the basis of the following statement made on page 2 of the
substitute specification:
None of the known systems . . . is formed of a
plurality of layers . . . which can be made flexible.
None . . . disclose outlets which can have relatively
small length-to-width ratios while ejecting air at
small acute angles, and none discloses outlets that
create an angular, non-linear stepped path for the
fluid.
However, Whelan is not among the references cited as
demonstrating the state of the art, and thus the quoted comment
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007