Appeal No. 1997-3267
Application 08/324,386
We agree with the appellant. Although, arguably, there
may be other methods of supplying the mixture to the pressure
chamber, we believe that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have known that any method for feeding the mixture into
the high pressure chamber of the appellant’s claimed method and
device would necessarily require forcing the mixture into the
high pressure chamber at a pressure the same as or slightly
higher than the pressure maintained in the chamber to allow for
adequate forward flow of the mixture into the chamber. The
mixture could not enter the chamber at a lower pressure than
that maintained in the chamber since the force of the pressurized
air at the mixture inlet would obstruct entry of the mixture into
the chamber. Therefore, we reverse the examiner’s rejection of
claims 4 through 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
Next, we will address the rejection of claims 4 and 6
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Stahl. Stahl teaches an
arrangement and method for filtration including a pressurizing
source (26), a vacuum chamber or suction box (23) and a source
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007