Appeal No. 2005-0169 Page 4
Application No. 10/118,754
rates within the primary, secondary and tertiary runners and that the shear rates at the
entrance to the runner system and the exit from the runner system are not specified.
The calculated shear rates for the three runners, however, indicate that whatever losses
in shear rate occur over the lengths of the runners are substantially made up by the
geometry of the runner system, such that the shear rate of the material exiting the
runner system is at least 40%, 50%, 60% or 70% of the shear rate of the material
entering the runner system, as recited in appellants’ claims.
We also note appellants’ argument (brief, page 4) that Rosato does not teach
that turbulence or turbulence inducing components maintain a shear rate of the material
and that, rather, it is the decrease in radius which causes the shear rate increase. Even
assuming appellants are correct that a reduction in runner radius as taught by Rosato
on page 249 substantially causes the shear rate increase, this is of no moment,
inasmuch as appellants’ claims do not require that the turbulence inducing components,
much less the turbulence inducing components alone, cause the shear rate increase.
Moreover, it appears that at least some degree of shear rate increase would inherently
occur or result from the presence of turbulence inducing angles in the runner system.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007