Appeal 2007-0380
Reexamination Control 90/007,199
Patent 6,394,644 B1
second end located between said edge surfaces” where the mixer
components comprise crossbars. Claims 26 and 27 depend from claim 25.
We construe claim 25 as requiring that both ends of the mixing
components be located between the first and second edge surfaces 22 and
24. Thus, any component of the mixing structure must be located entirely
within the first and second edges surfaces. Claim 25 defines the crossbars as
being a component of the mixing structure. We thus construe the claim as
requiring that the crossbars be located entirely within the first and second
edge surfaces. The crossbars of Signer do not lie entirely within the first and
second edge surfaces (see, e.g., Fig. 4).
Thus, the crossbars of Signer do not meet all the requirements of
claims 25 through 27.
We REVERSE the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 23 and 25-
28 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Signer.
Written Description
Claim 23 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶1, for failing to meet
the written description requirement. In particular, the Examiner finds that the
limitation “said outer circumferentially extending surface extending
perpendicularly between said transverse planes and substantially from one of
said transverse planes to the other of said planes” is not described within the
Streiff disclosure. The Examiner points to Fig. 4 where it can be seen that
“the outer circumferentially extending surface is perpendicular to the
transverse planes but does not reach plane 28 or 30 due to the chamfered
edges”. (Answer 22). We agree with the Examiner’s characterization of
Fig. 4. However, we do not construe the limitation in question as requiring
that the outer circumferentially extending surface extend completely from
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013