Appeal No. 1997-1073
Application No. 08/218,540
flow into the vessel. Accordingly, as Banu does not include
the third position through which fluid flows from the
container into said vessel, Banu cannot anticipate claim 1 or
the claims which depend therefrom, claims 2 through 4.
Claim 9 parallels the language of claim 1 with a step of
"starting and stopping fluid flow from said container into
said vessel in at least three positions substantially along
the longitudinal axis." (emphasis added). As Banu only
permits fluid to flow into the vessel at the top and bottom,
as discussed above, Banu does not meet the requirement of the
three positions of claim 9. Accordingly, claim 9 and its
dependents, claims 10 through 12, are not anticipated by Banu.
As to the obviousness rejection of claims 5, 6, 13, and
14, Banu does not meet all of the limitations of the
independent claims, and the examiner provides no motivation
for modifying Banu to remedy the deficiencies. Thus, Banu
does not render obvious dependent claims 5, 6, 13, and 14.
Therefore, we will reverse the obviousness rejection.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007