Appeal No. 2005-2404
Application No. 10/119,283
be combined for the purpose of solving the problem solved by the
appellants. See In re Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427, 1430, 40 USPQ2d 1309,
1311 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312, 24
USPQ2d 1040, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688,
693, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (en banc), cert.
denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991); In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016,
173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972). One of ordinary skill in the art
would have combined the references to improve the air flow
control and reduce the flow restriction and air tumbling in the
Kleven ‘297 device as discussed above.
We therefore conclude that the flow measuring element
claimed in the appellants’ claim 1 would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art over the applied references.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of that claim and claims 2-
15 and 20 that stand or fall therewith.
Claims 17-19 and 21
The appellants’ claim 21 requires a pitot tube type flow
meter having a body that includes upstream and downstream facing
surfaces carried by and mounted diametrically across the central
opening of an annulus.
Wiklund discloses an averaging pitot tube type primary
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007