Appeal No. 1997-1598
Application 08/456,699
pulp is not persuasive because the examiner has provided no
evidence or technical reasoning which shows that any spiral
movement caused by such friction would be sufficient to cause
gas separation.
For the above reasons, we find that the examiner has not
set forth a factual basis which is sufficient to support a
conclusion of prima facie obviousness of the invention recited
in claim 27 or any of the claims which depend therefrom.2
DECISION
The rejections of claims 27-31, 33, 38, 39, 43 and 44
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over EP ‘387 and claims 32 and 40-42
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over EP ‘387 taken with Sherman, are
reversed.
REVERSED
2Sherman is applied only for the purpose of showing a
dependent claim limitation. The examiner does not explain why
Sherman remedies any deficiency in EP ‘387 as to claim 27.
-7-7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007