Appeal 2007-3670
Application 10/404,701
3. The apparatus of claim 1 wherein the second inlet comprises a
plate having a plurality of apertures through which said tubes extend.
5. The apparatus of claim 1 wherein the second inlet is divided into
first and second chambers by a porous septum.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
of unpatentability:
Hershkowitz WO 98/49096 Nov. 5, 1998
Woods US 6,033,793 Mar. 7, 2000
The rejections as presented by the Examiner are as follows:
1. Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
unpatentable over Hershkowitz.
2. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Hershkowitz in view of Woods.
Appellant separately argues claims 1, 3, and 5. Accordingly, non-argued
dependent claims 2 and 6, which directly depend on claim 1, stand or fall
with claim 1. Non-argued claim 4, which directly depends on claim 3,
stands or falls with claim 3.
OPINION
CLAIM 1
Appellant argues that Hershkowitz does not disclose a “plurality of
tubes 'extending into the vessel and towards the exit such that the discharge
end[s] of the tubes are downstream of the discharge end of the second inlet'”
(Br. 6). Appellant argues that Hershkowitz does not disclose “the 'first inlet
comprising a plurality of tubes each having a discharge end'”, the first inlet’s
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013