Appeal No. 2005-1130
Application No. 10/072,876
combination would have led one of ordinary skill in the art who
desired the benefit in Ruf’s lamella of Sanford’s inhibition of
vortices, at the expense of some loss of the high paper quality
disclosed by Ruf, to place Sanford’s grooves in Ruf’s lamella.
Thus, we are not convinced of reversible error in the
examiner’s rejection over the combination of Ruf and Sanford.
As for the rejections over Sanford, the examiner argues that
Sanford discloses, in figures 7-9, a lamella having downstream
sloped portion 24D (answer, page 4). Portion 24D actually is at
the upstream end of the lamella (col. 5, lines 61-62).
The examiner has not established that Sanford discloses, or
would have fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art,
a downstream lamella end having a first surface and a portion
coupled to and sloped relative to the first surface as required
by the appellants’ independent claims 1 and 22, or a sloped
surface obliquely oriented with respect to and coupled to a first
surface as required by the appellants’ independent claim 44.
Hence, the examiner has not established a prima facie case of
anticipation or obviousness of the appellants’ claimed invention
over Sanford.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007