Appeal No. 2001-2086
Application No. 09/012,152
the cross-section of the conveying tube." The examiner sets
forth the following rationale in the paragraph bridging pages 5
and 6 of the Answer:
The term, the additional conveying member being
effective over only part of the cross section of the
conveying tube, is unclear. It would be expected that
a rotating element, such as element 15 of instant
figure 5 would be effective in moving fluids and would
sweep the entire cross section of the conveying member
in the same manner that the propellers and vanes of the
conveying member would sweep the entire cross section.
It is also expected that a conveying element would be
effective in conveying fluids in a conduit. While it
may be that a small conveying element may be less
efficient that [sic, than] a large element, this would
not prevent the element from being effective. It may
have been appellants [sic, appellants'] intent to
specify that the conveying element has a diameter of
_____% of the tube. However as shown by the figures,
the first and additional conveying elements appear to
have the same diameter. It is also considered that
impellers must be smaller, ie., have a diameter of
99.999...% or less than the tube that they are in if
they are to turn without binding.
Appellants contend at page 6 of the principal brief that
"[o]ne skilled in the art would readily appreciate from this
quoted language that the additional conveying member does not
come into contact with the wall of the conveying tube." However,
although it is clear from specification Figure 5 that the
additional conveying member 15 does not come in contact with the
wall, this much is also true for the other conveying elements.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007