Appeal No. 97-3199
Application No. 08/273,767
the scope of the invention to have equally sized and spaced
apertures, although such an embodiment is not preferred.
Appellants’ argument (main brief, pages 8 through 12)
does not persuade us that the examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1 as being anticipated by the Knief reference. Like the
examiner (answer, page 8), we do not view the characterization
by appellants of the claimed device as one for deflecting in a
“macroscopic sense” as distinguishing the claimed invention
from the reference apparatus. Neither claim 1, nor the
underlying disclosure, ever address the deflection of a
flowing medium in a macroscopic sense. Further, the argument
relating to back pressure (main brief, pages 9 and 10) fails
to convince us that the combined mixing and deflection unit as
defined in claim 1 does not read on the apparatus taught by
Knief. Appellants, in error, argue before this board (brief,
pages 10 and 11) that the openings formed in the plate of
Knief are clearly not evenly distributed when, as indicated
supra, the patent expressly teaches an even distribution.
Contrary to appellants’ point of view (main brief, page 12 and
reply brief, pages 2 and 3), we determined that the claimed
upstream and downstream flow directions read on the flows 31,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007