Appeal No. 96-2501
Application 08/177,243
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant's specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Turning first to the examiner's rejection of claims 2,
3, 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Doom
and that of claims 2, 6 and 7 as being anticipated by Kao, we
observe that appellant has argued (brief, pages 6-8) that neither
of these applied references has an arrangement of mixing elements
whereby "no mixing elements are in contact with one another
resulting in an open region of travel for fluids passing through
said conduit along its longitudinal axis," as recited in
independent claim 7 on appeal. The examiner has taken the
position that Doom and Kao are responsive to these limitations in
that the individual mixing elements of the references are not in
physical contact with one another and create an open region of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007