Appeal No. 1997-0863
Application 08/456,001
Since claims 27, 28 and 31 depend from claim 26 and
include all of the limitations thereof, it follows that these
claims are likewise not anticipated by Miyata. We also
further note that claim 31 adds the requirement that the
cross-sectional flow area for the media through the mixer
elements in the second conduit is greater than the cross-
sectional flow area for the media through the first conduit
“over the entire length of the second conduit,” a limitation
which is also not found in Miyata.
The next rejection for our consideration is that of
claims 4 through 14, 23 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Miyata in view of Fredriksson. In this
instance, the examiner has taken the position (answer, page 6)
that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art
to provide to the admixing means of Miyata a convergent
plate, as suggested by Fredriksson et al. in order to
provide a means through which the second medium passes
through prior to entering the static mixing means.
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007