Appeal No. 1998-3336 Page 9
Application No. 08/527,788
case of obviousness. Here, we find that the prior art applied
by the examiner does not teach or fairly suggest the use of an
impeller as a measuring means. We do not make any general
finding about the obviousness of the use of a rotatable
impeller in combination with a counter and timer. Therefore,
we reverse the rejection of claims 1, 3-5, and 7-10 as obvious
over Otten in view of Bartley further in view of Frew.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the rejection of claims 1, 3-5, and 7-10
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007