Court Opinion

ID: 9451606
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 17:20:36.081175+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:49.281948
License: Public Domain

MARTIN, Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I agree with the affirmance of the rejection of claim 6. I do not agree with reversal of claims 8 and 14 through 17.
There is certain fundamental knowledge about mixing and delivery which I am convinced anyone in this art would know. It is fundamental geometry that a mixing container can be cylindrical in shape. Likewise, it is fundamental that a funnel can be a convenient “means” for delivery of liquid reactants to an inlet under atmospheric pressure (on which pressure the claims read). Thus, even though those particular limitations noted by the majority are not disclosed in Miner, I do not think the resulting differences are such that the subject matter as a whole is non-obvious. Miner’s key teaching is that the mixing rotors will “tend to break up the uniform bubbles of the froth and to shear the latex” if rotated rapidly. An apparatus devised to embody that key teaching of Miner and falling within the scope of appellants’ broad claims 8 and 14-17 would be obvious in the context of the above fundamental knowledge. I would affirm all the claims on appeal.