Appeal No. 2000-1120
Application 09/095,205
1. Claims 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21 and 22;
2. Claims 16 and 20; and
3. Claim 23
On page 3 of the answer, the examiner agrees with
appellants' groupings. Hence, we consider claims 14, 16, 20, and
23 on this appeal.
We refer to the brief and to the answer for a complete
exposition of the opposing view points expressed by appellants
and by the examiner concerning the above-noted rejections.
OPINION
For the reasons set forth in the answer and below, we will
sustain each of the rejections.
The examiner’s position essentially is that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have
substituted the mixing mechanisms found in each of Chan, or
Gunnarsson, or Lidgren with the barley twist mechanism disclosed
in Blasnik. The examiner’s reasoning is that it would have been
obvious to make this substitution (1) for the purposes of
enabling a variation in the rotational speed of the mixing member
in response to the feel of the operator by controlling the rate
of depression of the handle and drive shaft and to lessen fatigue
of the operator and prevent slippage of the mixing device during
operation thereof, and (2) to facilitate sensing of the
consistency and viscosity of the cement while mixing is being
performed (answer, pages 5-14, particularly pages 7-8, pages 10-
11 and pages 13-14).
Appellants argue, inter alia, that the examiner has not
given proper weight to the preamble of the claims. (brief, pages
13-14). Appellants argue that the preamble recites "a bone
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007