Appeal 2007-1562
Application 10/865,666
concluded that Henderson describes an apparatus that comprises the
introduction of a fluid stream connected to the downstream end of the
transition zone and meets the limitations of the claimed invention
(Answer 3).
The obviousness rejection.
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Henderson. We affirm.
Appellant asserts that Henderson does not teach or suggest a
modular apparatus that comprises an inlet disposed substantially parallel to
the outlet (Br. 16).
Claim 14 specifies the inlet port is disposed substantially parallel to
the outlet. The Examiner recognizes that Henderson does not teach this
arrangement. However, the Examiner contends that arranging the inlet to be
parallel to the reactor would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill
in the art (Answer 3-4). In other words, it is the Examiner’s position that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have sufficient abilities to arrange
the shape of the fluid stream inlet.
Appellant did not refute the Examiner’s position in the responsive
Brief. We agree with the Examiner that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have sufficient skill to select the desired arrangement for the inlet into
the vessel. See In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549
(CCPA 1969)(“Having established that this knowledge was in the art, the
examiner could then properly rely, as put forth by the solicitor, on a
conclusion of obviousness ‘from common knowledge and common sense of
the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013