Appeal 2007-2193
Application 10/816,369
a skilled artisan could take its teachings, in combination with his own
knowledge of the particular art, and be in possession of the invention. In re
Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152, 36 USPQ2d 1697, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 1995) citing
In re LeGrice, 301 F.2d 929, 936, 133 USPQ 365, 372 (CCPA 1962).
We affirm the Examiner’s § 102(b) rejection of claim 11 over
Kuwahara.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) REJECTION OVER KUWAHARA IN VIEW OF YIP
CLAIMS 13 AND 19
Appellants argue that neither Yip nor Kuwahara disclose that the exit
orifice has a “substantially circular cross-section” as recited in claims 13 and
19 (Br. 13, 17). Appellants argue that if Yip has a circular exit orifice then
there should be a difference in the shading of Yip’s cross-sectional view
shown in Figure 1 (Br. 13).
Appellants further argue that because Kuwahara discloses tubular and
round sections in the vacuum to create a Venturi effect, there would have
been no motivation to combine Yip’s rectangular inlet orifice with
Kuwahara (Br. 14-15, 17). Appellants argue that combining Yip’s
rectangular inlet orifice with Kuwahara’s vacuum cleaner would have
disrupted the smooth flow required for Kuwahara’s Venturi effect, such that
the combination would have rendered Kuwahara unsatisfactory for its
intended purpose (Br. 16). Appellants argue that using a rectangular
opening would not have been a mere change in shape under In re Dailey,
357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), because the rectangular shape is
significant (i.e., critical) to achieving the desired noise and turbulence
reduction (Br. 15).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013