Appeal 2007-0380
Reexamination Control 90/007,199
Patent 6,394,644 B1
Streiff does not explain how the side by side arrangement of mixing plates
shown in Figure 4 does not meet the claim limitation when it is given its
broadest reasonable construction.
Claim 216
As to claim 21, Streiff argues that Duke does not show two saddle
elements that are “separately mounted on a common axis”. Streiff argues
that the elements of Duke cannot be “separately mounted” because the
elements are welded together. (Brief 18). However, as noted by the
Examiner, the mixing plates of Duke are separately mounted “enabl[ing] the
sets of mixing plates … to be welded together.” (Duke 4). As explained by
the Examiner, it is the device formed by the mounted plates, not those
welded together, that is relied upon for anticipation. (Answer 21). Streiff
has not explained why the superimposed mixing plates described in Duke (at
4) and seen in figure 4 of Duke are not “separately mounted” as required by
claim 21. While Streiff argues that Duke does not show mounting in a
blender or other equipment (Brief 18), Streiff has not shown where its own
claims require mounting in equipment.
For reasons stated above, we affirm the decision of the Examiner to
reject claims 1, 2, 5, 15-23, and 28 over Duke.
6 Streiff states that claim 22 is not anticipated for the same reasons that
claim 21 is not anticipated. (Br. 20).
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013