Appeal No. 2003-1141
Application 09/572,745
between the pump’s inlet port and the exhaust means or rotor.
These limitations find full response in Muhlhoff’s rotational
member (rotor section 37) which is disposed between the inlet
port at the top of the reducer 5 and the exhaust means or rotor
9.
Thus, the appellants contention that the subject matter
recited in claims 1, 10, 21 and 23 distinguishes over Muhlhoff is
unpersuasive. We shall therefore sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejection of these claims as being anticipated by
Muhlhoff.
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
Independent claim 28, which is generally similar to
independent claims 1 and 10, requires a rotational member which
is disposed between an inlet port and exhaust means, and which is
disk-shaped having a planar surface with a plurality of guiding
blades disposed thereon. The examiner has not explained, and it
is not apparent, how or why Muhlhoff teaches or would have
suggested a vacuum pump having such a rotational member.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 28, and dependent claim 29, as being
unpatentable over Muhlhoff.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007