Appeal No. 2005-2192
Application No. 10/047,865
The appellants (see pages 4 through 6 in the brief)
acknowledge that the annular inlet ring and sleeve disclosed
by Botros project in opposite directions, but argue that the
proposed combination of Chapman and Botros stems from an improper
piecemeal reconstruction of the claimed invention based on the
appellants’ disclosure.
The combined teachings of Chapman and Botros demonstrate
that the sleeve orientations disclosed therein, i.e. one
projecting in the same direction as the annular inlet ring and
the other projecting in the opposite direction, were art
recognized alternatives at the time of the appellants’ invention.
Moreover, the determination by the examiner that the artisan
would have appreciated the sleeve orientation disclosed by Botros
to be superior to that taught by Chapman in terms of reducing
turbulent fluid flow and improving impeller efficiency is
reasonable on its face and not disputed by the appellants. In
this light, the examiner’s conclusion that it would have been
obvious in view of Botros to modify the Chapman impeller by
orienting its sleeve to extend in a direction opposite to that of
its annular inlet ring, thereby resulting in the subject matter
recited in claims 1 and 2, is well founded.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007