Appeal No. 96-1145
Application 08/203,768
3). Even when appellants’ claims are given their broadest
reasonable
interpretation, see In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1055, 44
USPQ2d 1023, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319,
321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989), they clearly do
not encompass a method in which the plurality of alternating
zones exists only between a carbon source in one synthesis
chamber and seed particles in a separate synthesis chamber.
For the above reasons, we find that the examiner has not
carried his burden of establishing a prima facie case of
anticipation of the method recited in any of appellants’
claims 13, 16, 20, 22 or 26. We therefore reverse the
rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
In the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner
addresses only limitations in the dependent claims (answer,
pages 3-5). The examiner does not explain, and it is not
apparent, why Yazu, alone or in combination with the other
applied references, would have fairly suggested, to one of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007