Appeal No. 1997-0863
Application 08/456,001
(See Paper No. 32). As a result of their grouping with claim
1, we
view claims 2, 3 and 22 as falling with independent claim 1
and will therefore also sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claims 2, 3 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Miyata.
Claim 30 adds the further limitation to claim 1 that the
cross-sectional flow area of the second mixer is greater than
the
cross-sectional flow area of the first mixer “over the entire
length of the second mixer.” Since we do not find any such
disclosure or teaching in Miyata, we will reverse the
examiner’s rejection of this claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Miyata.
Independent claims 25 and 29 are similar to claim 30 in
that they each set forth, in slightly different language, that
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007