Appeal No. 96-3615
Application 08/237,567
tunnel of the arbor.
In rejecting this claim, the examiner asserts that Alonso
discloses everything except that the blender is not a V-
blender. The examiner considers that it would have been
obvious to provide a V-blender in Alonso in view of Fan or
Fischer “since the ‘v’ shaped container is well known and used
in the art of mixing among many other types of containers as
taught by Fan [or Fischer]” (answer, pages 5-6). Implicit in
the rejections is the examiner’s position that the modified
Alonso apparatus would correspond to the claimed subject
matter in all respects.
From our perspective, the examiner’s foundation position
that it would have been obvious to provide a V-blender in
Alonso in view of Fan or Fischer is questionable at the outset
for at least two reasons. First, it is not clear that the
multiple probes of Alonso, which appear to be continuously
submerged in the powder mixture, would function properly in a
V-blender, where they would most likely not be continuously
submerged in the mixture. Second, the examiner has not
advanced any persuasive argument as to whether a V-blender,
-11-
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007