Appeal No. 2000-0014
Application No. 08/747,927
controlling flow rate responsive to the movement of a stopper
axially in the throat (Figs. 4 and 5). As we see it, the
aforementioned particular valve teaching of Tsai simply would not
have been suggestive of the selective inclusion of a venturi-
shaped throat or element alone in the Krambeck apparatus, absent
reliance upon impermissible hindsight. It is for this reason that
the rejection before us must be reversed.
REMAND TO THE EXAMINER
We remand this application to the examiner to consider the
following matters:
1. The recitations in claim 1, last line, “said venturi”,
claim 7, lines 2,3 “said venturis”, claim 13, lines 2,3 “the
venturi”, and claim 14, line 5, “the venturi” do not correspond
to the apparent antecedent basis “venturi element” in claim 1,
line 7. The content of claim 14 does not appear in the drawing;
37 CFR § 1.83(a). In claim 15, last line, the antecedent for
“therein” should be clarified; apparently, cracking of the charge
takes place in a reactor.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007