Appeal 2007-3670
Application 10/404,701
discharge ends of the passages 23 (i.e., tubes) are downstream of the
discharge ends of the passages 22 (i.e, second inlets) (Answer 10). We
agree.
As clearly shown in Hershkowitz’s Figure 1, the discharge ends of the
passages 23 (i.e., tubes) are downstream of the discharge ends of the
passages 22 (i.e., second inlets) in the jet nozzle 14. Appellant’s argument
that Figure 1 is a diagrammatic illustration, rather than the “physical
representation of the apparatus” is not persuasive (Reply Br. 4). Even
though Hershkovitz discloses that Figure 1 is a “diagrammatic illustration,”
Figure 1 still represents the relative relationship of one part of the apparatus
to another part, specifically, the position of the discharge ends of the
passages 23 (i.e., tubes) relative to the discharge ends of the passages 22
(i.e., second inlets).
Moreover, regardless if Figure 1 is diagrammatic illustration,
Hershkowitz’s Figure 2 shows that the discharge ends of the passages 23
(i.e., tubes) are positioned downstream of the discharge ends of the passages
22 (i.e., second inlets), albeit a small distance. Appellant’s claims do not
recite that a specific “downstream” distance is required between the
discharge ends of the tubes and the discharge ends of the second inlets.
Accordingly, Hershkowitz’s placement of the discharge ends of passages 23
(i.e., tubes) any distance downstream of the discharge ends of the passages
22 (i.e., second inlets) satisfies Appellant’s argued claim feature.
From the foregoing discussion, Hershkowitz discloses all of
Appellant’s argued claim features. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s
§ 102(b) rejection of argued claim 1 and non-argued claims 2 and 6.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013