Appeal No. 1997-1412 Page 12
Application 08/139,888
Regarding claim 6, the appellants argue, “The embodiment
of Babel Figure 9 ... shows the end of the insert 74 flush
with the end of the conical nozzle tip 73. Thus, even the
embodiment relied on does not show one nozzle placed upstream
of another.” (Appeal Br. at 8.) The examiner replies, “Figure
8 of Babel shows the outlet of the main assist gas nozzle (31)
located upstream from the outlet of the sub assist gas nozzle
(30).” (Examiner’s Answer at 10.) We agree with the
examiner.
The appellants err in considering the reference in less
than its entirety. A reference must be considered as a whole
for what it reveals “to workers in the art.” Panduit Corp. v.
Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1566, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1595
(Fed. Cir. 1987). Here, the appellants focus only on figure 9
of Babel. The reference teaches much more. As admitted by
the appellants elsewhere, (Reply Br. at 1), Babel shows that
the outlet of the cone-shaped outer liner 30 is upstream from
that of the central multi-graduated passage hole 36. Fig. 8.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007