Appeal No. 1997-1412 Page 17
Application 08/139,888
Babel teaches the static pressure conversion surface and bank
as specified in claim 12.
For the foregoing reasons, the examiner has established a
prima facie case of anticipation, which the appelants have not
refuted. Therefore, we affirm the examiner’s rejection of
claims 1, 6, 11, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Babel. Next, we address the anticipation of
claim 1 by Hisayoshi.
Anticipation of Claim 1 by Hisayoshi
The appellants note, “claim 1 recites that the sub assist
gas nozzle increases pressure fluctuation and flow fluctuation
of the main assist gas flow in comparison with the sub assist
gas flow.” (Appeal Br. at 7.) They argue, “there is no
evidence that the Hisayoshi arrangement inherently achieves
this effect. In this regard, note the arrows in Figures 1 and
2 of Hisayoshi which appear to show that the flow of fluid in
the side channels exits the side channels almost vertically.”
(Id.) The examiner replies, “At least a portion of the gas
exiting the annular orifice surrounding the central gas exit
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007