Appeal No. 1998-3054
Application 08/770,888
sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783
(Fed. Cir. 1992). The examiner must explain why the prior art
would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the
desirability of the modification. See Fritch, 972 F.2d at
1266, 23 USPQ2d at 1783-84.
King teaches that his apparatus is uniquely designed to
enhance the mixing of a low viscosity component such as a
colorant or dye into a high viscosity fluid stream such as a
polymer melt (col. 1, lines 9-12), causes additive emanating
from a frustrum to be distributed as thin radial sheets,
thereby producing a larger interfacial surface area between
the additive and the main component flow (col. 6, lines 11-
16), and provides an annular gap which enables a portion of
the main flow to travel through the annular gap outside and
around the biscuit and thereby prevent the downstream or
output additive sheets from contacting the conduit sidewalls
(col. 6, lines 38-42).
King’s disclosed use of the apparatus, therefore, is much
different than mixing water into superheated steam. The
-5-5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007