Appeal No. 1997-4385
Application No. 08/288,864
standing or falling together. Therefore, in accordance with3
37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7), claims 20 through 24 fall with claim 19. Thus,
it follows that the decision of the examiner to reject claims
20 through 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is also affirmed.
Rejection (II)
We will not sustain the rejections of claims 25 through
29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Evans, by
Suzuki or by Kalen.
In claim 25, which is also written in Jepson format, the
appellant’s “improvement” comprises:
a block disposed adjacent the inlet opening for
defining an inlet passage for directing the mixture
in [sic] into the vortex chamber in a tangential
direction thereto.4
The examiner determined (answer, p. 5) that “the inlet
duct 15 of Evans is located adjacent the wall section 16 which
See page 3 of the appellant’s brief.3
The word “in” should be canceled upon return of the application to the4
jurisdiction of the examiner.
13
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007