Appeal 2005-2547
Application 10/134,817
location of additive addition and, therefore, the pump 29 cannot provide the
claimed pressurization (Br. 51-53; Reply Br. 16-17). Taking claim 20 as
representative, we determine that this claim does not require that the pump
be located downstream of the selected location. Claim 20 is directed to
“[t]he method of claim 19 in which said pressurizing occurs downstream of
said selected location.” (emphasis added). Pumping causes pressurizing, but
pressurizing is not limited to the pump location, it continues along the piping
system. In Venema, pressurizing occurs all along conduit 16 including
downstream of the selected locations of surfactant and polymer addition.
Therefore, the claim encompasses the pressurizing of Venema.
Appellant does not rely upon evidence of secondary indicia of
nonobviousness.
Appellant has neither shown that the Examiner’s basis for the
rejection is flawed nor overcome the rejection through a showing of
secondary indicia of nonobviousness.
III. CONCLUSION
We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 17-22 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2, nor the rejection of claims 17, 18, 21, and 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1 as lacking written descriptive support. However, we do
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 17-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Venema in view of Landers.
IV. DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject the claims is AFFIRMED.
17
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013