Appeal No. 1998-0023 Application 08/470,374 unpatentable over Miyata in view of Gillner. Again, appellants have not specifically argued the examiner’s combination of Miyata and Gillner, but have instead pointed out specific limitations in the claimed subject matter that they believe are not taught or suggested in the applied references. More specifically, in arguing independent claims 21 and 23 (brief, page 20), appellants have again urged that Miyata does not disclose a two-stage mixer in which the cross- sectional flow area of the second mixer is greater than that of the first mixer and in which the static mixer elements in the second stage are disposed along the longitudinal axis of the mixer or arranged longitudinally over a length of the second mixer. For the same reasons as set forth above regarding Miyata as applied against independent claim 17, we find these arguments to be unpersuasive of any error on the examiner’s part here. Thus, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 21 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As a result of its grouping with claim 23, we view claim 24 as falling with the independent claim from which it depends and will therefore also sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 11Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007