Appeal No. 97-3199
Application No. 08/273,767
48 and 50, respectively, depicted (Figure 1) and discussed by
Knief. Accordingly, and again contrary to the view of
appellants (brief, page 12), we find that the subject matter
of claim 1 is anticipated by the Knief teaching.
The obviousness rejection of claims 2 and 3
We affirm the rejection of each of claims 2 and 3 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 founded upon the disclosure of Knief.
Of particular significance to us, in regard to the
content of each of claims 2 and 3, is the explicit teaching by
Knief (column 2, lines 53 through 57) that the ratio of total
aperture flow area to first tubular portion cross-sectional
flow area can be adjusted to optimally minimize the effect on
fluid flow rate. Knief (column 4, line 54 to column 5, line
56) further expressly discusses total flow area of the
apertures. On the basis of the above teachings, this panel of
the board readily perceives that those having ordinary skill
in the art well understood aperture flow area as a result
effective variable. As such, we make the determination, based
upon the Knief teaching considered in its entirety, that
obtaining working obstruction ratios, such as those now
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007