Appeal No. 1997-0863
Application 08/456,001
tangentially thereto and is mixed or swirled together with the
first flowable medium in chamber (17) before its entry into
the converging orifice (24). Unlike the examiner, we do not
view the distributor chamber (17) of Fredriksson as being
readable on the “duct” required in appellants’ claim 14.
In light of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner
rejecting claims 1, 9 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, is reversed. The examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 1 through 3, 22 and 25 through 31 under 35 U.S.C.
102(b) based on Miyata is affirmed as to claims 1 through 3
and 22, but is reversed as to claims 25 through 31. The
decision of the examiner rejecting claims 4 through 14, 23 and
24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Miyata in
view of Fredriksson, is affirmed as to claims 4 through 13 and
23, but reversed as to claims 14 and 24. As we noted above,
our affirmance of the rejection of claims 4 through 13 and 23
based on the collective teachings of Miyata and Fredriksson is
denominated as a new ground of rejection under 37 CFR
1.196(b), since our rationale is substantially different than
20
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007