Appeal No. 2001-2086
Application No. 09/012,152
admitted prior art. In the words of the examiner, "[t]he use of
plural impellers would clearly and obviously provide more
impelling force and agitation than a single impeller" (page 12 of
Answer, last paragraph).
Appellants contend that "the Litz et al device does not
include the wall-sweeping lip required in Appellants' invention"
(page 10 of principal brief, last paragraph). We concur with the
examiner, however, that "it is considered that the prior art
impeller and the helical impeller 8 of Litz et al have a wall
sweeping edge/lip to the same degree as required by the instant
claims" (page 14 of Answer, last paragraph). Based on our
reasoning set forth above with respect to our finding that
element 3 of the admitted prior art comprises a lip, it should be
evident that we also find that impeller 8 of Litz comprises a lip
and, furthermore, it is reasonable to conclude that the proximity
of impeller 8 to the wall of the tube would result in the claimed
wall-sweeping.
As for appellants' argument that the gas-liquid dispersion
of Litz flows upward, the examiner has clearly pointed out
portions of Litz which detail the downward movement of the
dispersion in the tube (see page 14 of Answer, last sentence).
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007