Appeal No. 2002-2082
Application No. 09/289,393 Page 10
examiner's assertion “‘[f]ormation of slits at various positions
surrounding the heating element is ... a matter of design choice
since no criticality is mentioned in doing so’ is without merit."
The examiner is silent as to claim 9. We presume that the
examiner's earlier assertion that "[f]ormation of slits at
various positions surrounding the heating element is also a
matter of design choice since no criticality is mentioned in
doing so" was meant to apply to independent claim 9 as well.
As stated, supra, with respect to claim 5, we do not agree
with the examiner's position that “‘[f]ormation of slits at
various positions surrounding the heating element is a matter of
design choice since no criticality is mentioned in doing so’ is
without merit." We agree with appellants that the examiner's
position is without merit. The specification discloses (page 24)
that “holes 31a to 31e are provided upstream of the heating
element 4 in such a manner as to be spaced more apart from the
heating element 4, in comparison with the group of holes 32.
Thus, even if dust contained in the fluid is accumulated on the
end portions of the walls of the holes 31a to 31e, change in the
condition of flow of the fluid at a part, at which the flow rate
of the fluid is measured, of the heating element 4 is very
largely suppressed. Consequently, the flow rate detecting
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007