Appeal No. 1997-0863
Application 08/456,001
Appellants urge (brief, pages 18-20) that one skilled in
the art would not consider combining Fredriksson and Miyata as
posited by the examiner and that the examiner’s attempt to
combine these references in such a manner is nothing more than
a hindsight reconstruction of the prior art based on the
disclosure of the present application. In addition,
appellants contend that Fredriksson does not teach or suggest
the specific form of admixing device set forth in dependent
claim 4 and independent claims 9 and 14 on appeal.
While we are in agreement with appellants’ assessment of
the examiner’s proposed combination of Miyata and Fredriksson,
in that we see no teaching or suggestion in these references
for carving out only the initial section (i.e., ring member 15
and the first module 21) of the mixer in Fredriksson and
attempting to modify the admixing portion (20) of the mixer
(1a) of Miyata to include such components, we nonetheless will
sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 4 through 13 and 23
on the basis of the combined teachings of Miyata and
Fredriksson, but not the rejection of claims 14 and 24 on that
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007