Appeal No. 2005-2404
Application No. 10/119,283
superior results as compared with a conventional single large
bore” (col. 1, lines 45-48; col. 2, lines 50-56). Nowacki
discloses (col. 3, lines 54-62):
As compared with a single large hole or bore of
substantially equal area, there is 30% less restriction
to flow. Therefore, a stronger signal is obtained.
Air volume of approximately 5 to 120 liters/minute can
now be measured, as contrasted with a range of
20-120 liters/minute with a single hole. This is due
to better control of air flow without molecules of air
collecting in the flow path. There is also less
tumbling of the air.
The appellants acknowledge that Kleven ‘297 discloses all
aspects of claim 1 except the plurality of circular apertures
eccentrically disposed with respect to the center point of the
impedance means (brief, page 5).
The appellants argue that Nowacki’s bore (40) cannot
reasonably be substituted for the single flow opening (112) of
Kleven ‘297 because a bore is not a substitute for an aperture
which, the appellants argue, is a hole or opening in an otherwise
solid wall or surface (brief, page 7; reply brief, pages 4-6).
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of one
reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of
another reference, or whether one or all of the references must
expressly suggest the claimed invention but, rather, is what the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007