Appeal No. 2002-0249
Application No. 09/321,390
would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. See In re Preda,
401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968). Morever, the
knowledge generally available to a person having ordinary skill
in the art would include the appellant’s admission regarding what
was known in the art at the time of the appellant’s invention.
See In re Nomiya, 509 F.2d 566, 570-71, 184 USPQ 607, 611-12
(CCPA 1975)(the admitted prior art in an applicant’s
specification may be used in determining the patentability of a
claimed invention); See also In re Davis, 305 F.2d 501, 503, 134
USPQ 256, 258 (CCPA 1962).
CLAIM 19
With the above precedents in mind, we turn first to the
examiner’s rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Clawson and
Narumiya. We observe that the appellant does not dispute the
examiner’s finding that Clawson discloses an autothermal reformer
assembly corresponding to the claimed autothermal reformer
assembly except for its failure to disclose the claimed open cell
foam catalyst bed. Compare the Answer, page 5, with the Brief,
pages 13-14.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007