Appeal 2007-0380
Reexamination Control 90/007,199
Patent 6,394,644 B1
26, the central axis is shown at 16, all of which make up the saddle
element 10.
5. As to the rejection over Duke, Streiff presents separate arguments as
to claims: (a) 1, (b) 15, (c) 17, and (d) 21.2
6. As noted by Streiff, “claim 1 requires a saddle element to have
crossbars wherein ‘each respective crossbar is laterally connected
directly to an adjacent crossbar at respective ends thereof’”. (Br. 14).
7. As noted by Streiff, claim 15 “is directed to a saddle element having
crossbars wherein at least two of the crossbars are arranged in
intersecting oblique planes where (1) ‘two of said oblique planes
intersect at a line disposed essentially in the transverse plane of said
first edge…’ and (2) ‘the first ends of the crossbars of said two
oblique planes being connected together near said line’.” (Br. 16).
8. As noted by Streiff “Claim 17 is directed to a static mixer structure
that comprises two of the saddle elements of claim 15 wherein the
saddle elements are arranged with the second edge surfaces thereof
disposed in ‘mated, contacting relationship’.” (Br. 17).
9. Streiff further notes that “Claim 21 requires a static mixer structure to
be comprised of two saddle elements which are ‘separately mounted
on a common axis’.” (Br. 18).
10. Claim 21 also requires the saddle elements to be arranged with the
second edge surfaces thereof disposed in “mated, contacting
relationship.”
2 As to the other rejected claims, Streiff argues that these claims are not
anticipated for reasons set forth as to another claim. For example, Streiff
states that claims 2 and 5 are not anticipated for the same reasons expressed
as to claim 1. (Br. 16).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013