Appeal No. 96-3512
Application 08/235,623
major face of the member referred to a distance that was within
the minimum distance as set forth in the above-noted description.
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the rejection
of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Considering next the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8 and 9
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Kaartinen, the
examiner is of the opinion that:
The reference shows in Fig. 2 and col. 6 lines 20-60 a
device having an inlet, a mesh surface immediately
above and perpendicular thereto (off which the gases
may bounce back to the inlet after contacting it) and
electrical conductors for heating it, all inside a
tapered reactor whose outlet is smaller than the inlet.
This meets the required elements. [Answer, pages 3 and
4.]
From the above, it appears that the examiner considers the mesh
basket 10 to correspond to the claimed “member.” We must point
out, however, that the claims require this member to be self-
supported either on or against the wall of the reaction chamber.
Contrary to the claimed arrangement, the mesh basket 10 is
supported from mounting plate 13 by conductors 11, 12.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4,
6, 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Kaartinen.
Turning now to the rejection of claims 1-6, 9-15 and 18-20
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Lau, the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007