Appeal No. 97-3199
Application No. 08/273,767
appear to us to be clearly akin to the “voids” (openings)
about the trapezoidal guide vanes 16a to 16e and support pipes
18 present in the “guide configuration” seen in appellants’
Figure 2. Additionally, unlike appellants (main brief, page
14), we recognize the even distribution of tongues 11 in the
guide configuration of Gilles (Fig. 3) as incorporating an
even distribution of openings thereabout.
In summary, this panel of the board has:
reversed the rejection of claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite;
affirmed the rejection of claims 1 and 8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Knief;
affirmed the rejection of claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Knief; and
affirmed the rejection of claims 1, 4, 6, and 8 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Gilles.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007