Appeal No. 96-3796
Application 08/195,397
Weisenbarger which would have suggested locating them in that position. Moreover, even if it might be
concluded that such a location would have been obvious in view of Weisenbarger's Fig. 1 embodiment
(analogizing casing 10 to the separator column), the agitator apparatus would not be removable from
the tank without disconnection from the separator column, as claimed, because the disclosure of
Weisenbarger that the pump 16, tube 36, etc., are attached to the casing 10 at adapter 18 would
suggest to one of ordinary skill that the agitator apparatus of Hickey '144 be connected to separator
column 17.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 15.
(c) Claim 22
In this claim, the agitator circuit is recited as being "supported in said reactor tank" (emphasis
added). We do not consider that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in view of
Weisenbarger, to locate the Hickey '144 loop (i.e., withdrawal conduit and return conduit) and shearing
means 29A or 30A in reactor tank 10. Since Weisenbarger does not disclose the use of any type of
additional tubular member within casing 10, we consider that, at most, it may have been obvious to
locate the agitator circuit of Hickey '144 within separator column 17, but in that case the agitator circuit
could not be removed from the tank without disconnection from the separator column, as discussed
above with regard to the rejection of claim 15.
The rejection of claim 22, and thus of claims 23 to 27 dependent thereon, will not be sustained.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007