Appeal No. 96-1808
Application 08/204,119
the Schneider ‘716 apparatus (answer, pages 5-6).
The examiner’s argument is deficient in that the examiner
has not explained why, if Cosgrove’s liquid media handling
means were used with the apparatus of Schneider ‘716, the
liquid media handling means would be capable of movement
relative to both the vessel and the paddle. Cosgrove’s vessel
and paddle move together because each vessel has a paddle
mounted therein (col. 12, lines 52-57). In the Schneider ‘716
apparatus, the paddle is attached to bridge 4, which the
examiner considers to
be the head recited in appellants’ claims, and is movable in
the vertical direction relative to the vessel which is
attached to support 6, which is movable in the horizontal
direction (figure 2). Thus, if Cosgrove’s liquid media
handling means were attached to the Schneider ‘716 bridge 4,
it would not move relative to the shaft or paddle, and if
Cosgrove’s liquid media handling means were attached to the
Schneider ‘716 movable support (6), it would not move relative
to the vessel. Hence, it does not appear that the combination
proposed by the examiner would produce the claimed invention
-5-5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007