Appeal No. 1998-0805
Application No. 08/599,508
fashion, and the examiner again relies upon Wilke for
disclosing these elements. Considering the teachings of Wilke
in the light of Section 103 rather than Section 102(b) does
not alter our conclusion that the claimed “first air flow
passageway” is lacking. Hodson, which was cited by the
examiner for other purposes, also fails to disclose or teach
an air passageway in which powder suspended in air as a result
of vibration can be separated by size.
It therefore is our view that the combined teachings of
Wilke and Hodson fail to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness with regard to claim 7. This being the case, we
will not sustain the rejection of independent claim 7 or, it
follows, of claims 8-12, which depend therefrom.
The rejection of independent claim 13 and dependent
claims 14-16 on the basis of Wilke and Burns also will not be
sustained, on the basis of the same reasoning that was set
forth above regarding claims 7-12, for Burns fails to disclose
or teach the claimed first air flow passageway.
Consideration of the teachings added by Smith (claims 2,
4, 6 and 20), or Calvert (claims 24 and 25), or other
combinations of secondary references (claims 5, 17 and 26-33),
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007