Appeal No. 2003-2069
Application 09/414,867
appellants until the examiner has presented a prima facie case of
obviousness. We agree with appellants that there are several
features of the invention recited in claim 1 which have not been
specifically addressed by the examiner.
The examiner has found that Lagergren teaches all the
features of claim 1 except for the rotating impellers having
meshed lobes. The examiner noted that Colonnello teaches the use
of intermeshing lobes in a fuel flowmeter and that it would have
been obvious to the artisan to use such intermeshing lobes in the
flowmeter of Lagergren. We have reviewed Colonnello, and we
cannot find any support for this finding. Colonnello teaches the
use of two elliptical rotors, but there is no indication that
these rotors use rotating impellers having meshed lobes as
claimed. The examiner has made this finding without any
supporting analysis. Claim 1 also recites that the fluid fills
the voids between the lobes and moves cylindrically around
opposite partially cylindrical walls. The examiner has not
offered any analysis as to how the rotors of Colonnello or
Lagergren can possibly meet this claimed feature. Since the
applied prior art does not provide support for the examiner’s
factual findings, we find that the examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007