Appeal No. 97-2418 Page 12
Application No. 08/390,843
sense in a two phase steam flow line, it is the appellants'
burden to prove that Bachmann's diverter does not perform the
functions defined in claim 1.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is
affirmed.
The appellants have grouped claims 1 through 3 as
standing or falling together. Thereby, in accordance with 373
CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7), claim 2 and 3 fall with claim 1. Thus, it
follows that the decision of the examiner to reject claims 2
and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is also affirmed.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 1 through 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is
3See page 3 of the appellants' brief.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007