Appeal No. 2002-0672
Application No. 09/158,715
v. Sumitomo Electric, 868 F.2d 1251, 1255-56, 9 USPQ2d 1962, 1965
(Fed. Cir. 1989).
The examiner argues that Lesieur’s reformer sections 28 are
catalyst blocks (answer, page 3). Lesieur teaches that “[t]he
reformer sections 28 are disposed between the planar wall
members 22 and 24[, and] each of the reformer sections 28
includes a plurality of side-by-side passages 30 which are shown
most clearly in Fig. 3. The reformer passages 30 can be formed
by a corrugated panel 32 or by individual U-shaped strips 34
which are sandwiched between and secured to the planar wall
members 22 and 24" (col. 3, lines 22-29). “All surfaces of the
reformer and burner sections of the reformer assembly can be
catalyzed after wash coating the assembled reformer” (col. 4,
lines 16-18).
As these excerpts from Lesieur indicate, Lesieur’s reformer
section is not a “catalyst block” as that term is used by the
appellant. Because the examiner has not established that the
appellant’s “catalyst block” limitation is disclosed in Lesieur,
either expressly or under principles of inherency, the examiner
has not established a prima facie case of anticipation over
Lesieur of the invention claimed in the appellant’s claims 10
or 12. Moreover, claim 12 depends from claim 11 which requires
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007