Appeal No. 2005-2552
Application No. 10/418,528
once the inlet holes of De Young are set, as with appellants'
fluid inlet, De Young's inlet to the second flow path has the
recited fixed cross-sectional area.
As for the claim 8 recitation that "the fluid inlet
comprises two apertures circumferentially spaced about the
conduit," we fully concur with the examiner that Helme evidences
the obviousness of providing two such apertures. While
appellants maintain that the openings of Helme "are not shown as
rotatable between upstream and downstream positions" (page 10 of
principal brief, second paragraph), the examiner appropriately
points out that De Young is cited for disclosing a rotatable
inlet. Appellants have not addressed the thrust of the
examiner's rejection concerning the obviousness of modifying the
rotatable inlet of De Young in accordance with the disclosure of
Helm. We also note that appellants base no argument upon
objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected results.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well
stated by the examiner, the examiner's decision rejecting the
appealed claims is affirmed.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007