Appeal No. 2004-0804
Application No. 09/757,886
workable ratios for the types of downcomers described in EP
’262. Accordingly, the appellants’ reliance on the textbook
reference discussion is misplaced.
Because the appellants have not successfully rebutted the
examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness, we affirm this
ground of rejection.
IV. Claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over EP ’262 and Jenkins
Regarding appealed claim 6, the appellants rely on the same
argument as they did for appealed claim 3. Accordingly, we
affirm this ground of rejection for the same reasons set forth
above with respect to appealed claim 3.
V. Claims 9 & 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over WO ’621 or EP
’262 in view of either Sampath or Yu
Regarding appealed claim 9, the appellants rely on the same
arguments as they did for appealed claims 3 and 7. Accordingly,
we affirm this rejection for the same reasons set forth above
with respect to appealed claims 3 and 7.
5 Contrary to the appellants’ representation (appeal brief,
p. 4), an excerpt of this reference has not been enclosed with
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007