Appeal No. 1997-0863
Application 08/456,001
area.” Claim 26 also requires a second mixer defined in
language similar to that mentioned above regarding the first
mixer and specifically requires that a cross-sectional flow
area for the media through the mixer elements in the second
conduit (second mixer) be greater than the cross-sectional
flow area for the media through the first conduit (first
mixer). On page 17 of the brief and page 10 of the reply
brief, appellants assert that Miyata does not have mixing
elements which extend across the entire cross-sectional flow
area of the conduits as required in claim 26, and for that
reason does not anticipate appellants’ claimed subject matter.
At least with regard to the first mixer (1a) of Miyata, we
must agree with appellants that none of the mixer elements of
the unit bodies (8a, 8b) extend across the entire cross-
sectional flow area of the conduit. Accordingly, Miyata does
not disclose or teach, either expressly or under principles of
inherency, each and every element of the claimed invention,
and for that reason we will not sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Miyata.
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007