Appeal No. 2005-2404
Application No. 10/119,283
by and mounted diametrically across the central opening of an
annulus.
The examiner, therefore, has not carried the burden of
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the flow meter
claimed in the appellants’ claim 21. Consequently, we reverse
the rejection of that claim and claims 17-19 that depend directly
or indirectly therefrom.1
DECISION
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1-15 over
Kleven ‘297 in view of Nowacki, and claim 20 over Kleven ‘297 in
view of Nowacki and Kleven ‘568, are affirmed. The rejections of
claims 17 and 21 over Kleven ‘297 in view of Wiklund, and
claims 18 and 19 over Kleven ‘297 in view of Wiklund and
Kleven ‘568, are reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR §
1 The examiner does not rely upon Kleven ‘568 for any
disclosure that remedies the above-discussed deficiency in
Kleven ‘297 and Wiklund.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007