Appeal No. 2000-0014
Application No. 08/747,927
2. Appellants’ specification (page 4) appears to acknowledge
that a “single-neck venturi injector” was known in the art prior
to appellants’ invention. The examiner should determine whether
the claimed subject matter of claims 1 and 15, for example, would
have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the
acknowledged injector and the Krambeck teaching, collectively
considered. In other words, a determination should be made as to
whether the noted prior art would have been suggestive of (a)
modifying a single-neck venturi injector to yield a plural-neck
venturi injector, following the plural passageway (nozzle)
teaching of Krambeck, and/or (b) modifying each passageway
(nozzle) 16 of Krambeck to include a known venturi therein, in
accordance with the acknowledged known practice. In assessing
each of the remaining claims 2 through 14, the examiner should
consider the claim content relative to the referenced prior art,
supra, by itself or with other known art.
In summary, this panel of the board has reversed the
rejection of appellants’ claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), and
remanded the application to the examiner for reasons given above.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007