Appeal No. 1997-1412 Page 7
Application 08/139,888
• claims 6 and 23.
(Appeal Br. at 3.) Conversely, the appellants omit a
statement that claims 11 and 12 do not stand or fall together,
a statement that claims 6 and 23 do not stand or fall
together, and reasons why claims 12 and 23 are separately
patentable. Therefore, we consider the claims to stand or
fall together in the groups, with claims 1, 11, and 23, as the
respective representative claims of the three groups. Next,
we address the anticipation of claims 1, 6, 11, and 12 by
Babel.
Anticipation of Claims 1, 6, 11, and 12 by Babel
Regarding claims 1, 6, 11, and 12, the appellants argue,
“there is no evidence that Babel discloses an arrangement
which inherently increases pressure fluctuation and flow
fluctuation of the main assist gas flow in comparison with the
sub assist gas flow.” (Appeal Br. at 6.) The examiner
replies, “The increase in pressure fluctuation recited in
claim 1 is a result of a structure which produces a central
main assist gas flow and an annular sub assist gas flow which
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007