Appeal No. 1997-1412 Page 19
Application 08/139,888
Obviousness of Claims 6 and 23 over Hisayoshi-Babel
The appellants argue, “the embodiment of Figure 9 of
Babel shows the end of the insert 74 flush with the end of the
conical nozzle tip 73, not one nozzle placed upstream of
another.” (Appeal Br. at 9.) The examiner replies, “the two
nozzles can be placed ... with the inner nozzle upstream from
the outer nozzle as claimed and shown in Figure 8 ....”
(Examiner’s Answer at
11.) We agree with the examiner.
The appellants err in considering the reference in less
than its entirety. Here, the appellants again 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.
The appellants also make the following argument.
Babel et al. teaches that it is potentially
beneficial to adjust the gauge and flow cross
section of the conical channel. It is true that, in
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007