Appeal No. 1997-3267
Application 08/324,386
broader than claim 5 since it does not require the mixture to be
fed into the chamber at higher than atmospheric pressure and does
not require the pressure difference to be 1-2 bar but only to be
“relatively small.” Therefore, we will affirm the examiner’s
rejection of claim 7 applying our same reasoning used in sus-
taining the rejection of claim 5. Claim 8, which depends from
claim 7, includes the pressure difference to be 1-2 bar which
has been previously discussed and shown to be taught or suggested
in Stahl. Therefore, we will also sustain the examiner’s rejec-
tion of claim 8 applying the rationale set forth with respect to
claim 5. Appellant has stated on the record that claim 10 falls
with claim 8 and therefore we will affirm the examiner’s rejec-
tion of claim 10.
Finally, we will address the rejection of dependent
claims 9 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Stahl in view
of Oosten. Claim 9 includes the additional method limitations of
the suction box 1) creating a pressure differential between the
pressure in the suction box and pressure in the pressure chamber
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007