Appeal 2007-0380
Reexamination Control 90/007,199
Patent 6,394,644 B1
Signer
Claims 1, 2, 5, 23 and 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Signer.
Claims 1, 23, and 28 require that “each respective crossbar is laterally
connected directly to an adjacent crossbar at respective ends thereof.”
Claims 2 and 5 depend from claim 1.
The Examiner concedes that not all of the crossbars of Signer are
connected to an adjacent crossbar at endpoints. However, the Examiner
reasons that since the mixing structure is defined in the claims as
“including” the connected crossbars, the mixing structure may contain
crossbars that are not connected at an endpoint. (Answer 16). We do not
agree. We construe the claim in such a way that each crossbar within the
mixing structure must be “connected directly to an adjacent crossbar at
respective ends thereof”. We agree with the Examiner that the use of the
term “including” allows the “mixing structure” to contain components other
than crossbars. However, we construe the claim as limiting each crossbar
present in the mixing structure to one that is “connected directly to an
adjacent crossbar at respective ends thereof” and therefore excluding from
the mixing structure any crossbars that are not connected to an adjacent
crossbar at respective ends thereof. Thus, the crossbars of Signer do not
meet all the requirements of claims 1, 2, 5, 23, and 28.
Claim 25
Claim 25 does not require direct connection of adjacent crossbars but
does require “a mixing structure located in said flow path between said edge
surfaces and including a plurality of mixer components, each of said mixer
components have a first end located between said edges surfaces … and a
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013