Appeal No. 1998-0023
Application 08/470,374
As for appellants’ argument that claim 17 on appeal
requires the second mixer to have a plurality of static mixer
elements “disposed along a longitudinal axis thereof,” and
that the second mixer in Miyata lacks such an arrangement
because the disks (16, 17) therein are not mixer elements, but
diverter plates, and the mixing elements of Miyata (small
chambers 15) are arranged not along a longitudinal axis of the
second mixer, but laterally thereto, in a radial direction, we
also find this argument to be unpersuasive. In the first
place, given the redirection of flow created by the unit
bodies (14) of the disks (16, 17) as seen in Figures 1 and 7
of Miyata and the creation of flow passageways (19) defined by
disks (17), we view the plurality of disks (16, 17) of Miyata
as broadly being mixer elements “disposed along a longitudinal
axis” of the second mixer. Moreover, even if only the small
chambers (15) are viewed as the mixer elements in Miyata, we
note that sets of the small chambers (15) associated with each
pairing of disks (16, 17) can be viewed as being “mixer
elements” and that a plurality of such mixer elements are
“disposed along a longitudinal axis” of the second mixer (1b),
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007