Appeal No. 97-1107 Page 12
Application No. 08/047,512
diverging cell and would have increased the purge rate in comparison with a cell without any directed
gas flow.
Therefore, we conclude that the examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness
with respect to the subject matter of claim 27 and that appellant has not sufficiently rebutted this prima
facie case.
OTHER ISSUES
Should prosecution on this case continue, we bring to the attention of the examiner a possible
written description problem with respect to claim 26 and those claims dependent thereon. These claims
require that the cell body have “a uniform thickness non-porous wall.” This language was not present in
the original claims and we found no descriptive support in the specification for uniformity of the wall.
Should the “uniform thickness” language be present in any of the claims further prosecuted, the
examiner should determine whether the written description required of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
is violated.
It is also suggested that the examiner request a better copy of the Barnes reference, including
page 19 of the catalog if it can be obtained.
CONCLUSION
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007