Appeal 2007-1722
Application 10/212,919
reasoning to modifying prior art teachings. See Id. at 1742, 82
USPQ2d at 1397. In this instance, common sense would dictate that
a surface, such as defined in claims 23 and 25, which faces an
impeller, and against which particulates are being thrown, would
desirably be angled obliquely relative to the axis of rotation to reduce
wear from impacting particles.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We affirm the rejection of claims 21-25 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Studebaker in view of a design choice.
On the record before us, Appellants are not entitled to a patent containing
the claims on appeal.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 21-25 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2006).
AFFIRMED
vsh
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013