Appeal No. 2005-2552
Application No. 10/418,528
second flow path into multiple rotated positions. As explained
by the examiner, appellants fail to "point out any structural
detail of the claimed invention missing from the reference to
De Young but rather relies on the functional limitations of the
claim for distinction" (page 7 of Answer, penultimate paragraph).
Furthermore, appellants have not set forth an argument that the
apparatus of De Young is incapable of rotating the fluid inlet
into multiple rotated positions. Moreover, and most
significantly, the claim language on appeal does not require
anything more than the fluid inlet being rotated between the
upstream and downstream positions. In other words, the recited
"multiple rotated positions" is met by De Young's rotation
between the upstream and downstream positions, and vice versa.
Moreover, we find that De Young fairly describes to one of
ordinary skill in the art the movement of the inlet to various
positions between the upstream and downstream positions in order
to regulate flow in the first path.
Appellants also contend that De Young "fails to disclose an
aperture in the feed lines 14 having 'a fixed cross-sectional
area' as required by claims 1 and 13" (page 9 of principal brief,
last paragraph). However, the examiner correctly explains that
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007