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 -5-5Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007