Appeal 2006-2860
Application 10/737,502
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
RECITATION OF REFERENCES
Weber US 4,940,539 July 10, 1990
Ozama US 6,187,193 B1 Feb. 13, 2001
Claims 4 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite. Claims 1-3, 5 and 10 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Weber in view of Ozama.2
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the
Examiner and the Appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make
reference to the Answer (mailed April 28, 2006) for the Examiner's
reasoning in support of the rejections and to the Brief (filed February 21,
2006) for the Appellants' arguments there against. We affirm the rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph and reverse the rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Our reasons follow.
DISCUSSION
Claims 4 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph. The Examiner has determined that the phrase "said venturi outlet
below liquid level" does not have proper antecedent basis in the stated
claims. (Answer 3). Appellants agree with the Examiner's determination.
(Br. 4). Appellants indicate that an amendment after final was submitted
concurrently with the filed Brief to overcome this rejection. The Examiner
2 The Examiner in stating the rejection appearing on page 4 of the Answer
included claims 6 and 8. The Examiner unequivocally withdrew the
rejection of these claims (Answer 6). The Examiner further indicated that
the subject matter of claim 7 was patentable over the cited Weber and
Ozama references. (Answer 6).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007