Appeal No. 2003-2069
Application 09/414,867
Since independent claim 12 has the same recitations of
claim 1 just discussed, the examiner has also failed to establish
a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to claim 12 for
reasons discussed above. Therefore, we do not sustain the
examiner’s rejection of independent claim 12 or of claims 13-22
which depend therefrom.
Independent claim 23 does not recite any of the features
of claim 1 discussed above. With respect to claim 23, appellants
argue that “Lagergren does not describe, teach or suggest the
flowmeter with rotors/impellers having intermeshing lobes,
sensors and markers as provided in the claimed invention” [brief,
page 12]. We note, however, that claim 23 does not recite any
rotors/impellers or any markers. With respect to Colonnello,
appellants argue that “there is no showing as to where the
Colonnello additional cables with the junction box are to be
provided in Lagergren” [id., page 13]. We note, however, that
claim 23 does not recite any additional cables or a junction box.
Thus, appellants make arguments which are not relevant to the
invention as recited in claim 23.
Claim 23 recites a housing, rotors, a pulse-creating
member, a transmitter, a temperature sensor, a pulse sensor,
first and second signal conditioners, a microprocessor and
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007