Appeal 2007-1002
Application 10/257,830
Concerning the § 102 rejection of claims 19-21 and 23 over CH ‘064,
the Examiner is on sound footing in maintaining that the claims do not
preclude an intermediary element, such as plate 16 of the reference, between
the nozzle and the stationary deflection surface. We find no error in the
Examiner’s reasoning that the nozzle of the reference “is clearly directed is
[sic, in] a downstream direction where fluid emanating from the nozzle will
contact the stationary deflection surface 18” (Answer 32, second para.).
As for the § 103 rejection of claims 1-7 and 9-22 over EP ‘235 and
Yao, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have found it obvious to employ the static mixer of
Yao in the system of EP ‘235 for making a bentonite-water suspension.
Appellant’s arguments directed to the asserted deficiencies of the structure
of the Yao mixer have been discussed above.1
As a final point, we note that with respect to the § 103 rejections,
Appellant bases no argument upon objective evidence of nonobviousness,
such as unexpected results, which would serve to rebut the prima facie case
of obviousness established by the Examiner.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims is
affirmed.
1 It would seem that the Examiner’s discussion at pages 7-19 of the Answer
is an excessive restatement of the entirety of the reference disclosure that
unnecessarily burdens the record.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013