Appeal No. 2001-0130
Application No. 09/050,491
in a furnace. (Answer, page 6.) Nevertheless, the examiner
reasoned that conventional heating means, such as furnaces,
would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art
to be effective for providing the non-oxidizing atmosphere of
Park ‘095. (Id.)
The appellants do not really dispute the examiner’s
reasoning with respect to the furnace. Rather, the appellants
repeat their argument with respect to appealed claim 1 that Park
‘095 does not disclose the “floating contact” concept.
Under these circumstances, we uphold the examiner’s
rejection on this ground for the same reasons given above for
appealed claim 1.
Summary
In summary, our disposition of this appeal is as follows:
I. the rejection of claims 9 and 36 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, as indefinite is
reversed;
II. the rejection of claims 1 through 3, 5 through
16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 30, 32 through 42, 44, 45,
and 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Park ‘942 is reversed;
14
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007