Appeal No. 2002-1330
Application No. 09/178,249
catalyst vapor (e.g., by diffusion) molecules over the precursor
sol film, thus satisfying the here claimed limitation of
“flowing a precursor reaction catalyst over said layer.”3 In
this regard, the fundamentals of mass-transfer dictate that
“[w]hen a homogeneous material - either gas, liquid, or solid -
contains two or more components whose concentrations vary from
point to point, there is a tendency for transfer of mass to take
place in such a way as to cause the concentrations to become
uniform.” See Chemical Engineers’ Handbook 14-3, 14-4 (Robert
H. Perry & Cecil H. Chilton eds., 5th ed. 1973), copy attached.
Absent any special definition in the appellants’ specification
for the term “flowing,”4 we must uphold the examiner’s
determination that Smith discloses, either expressly or
inherently, each and every limitation of appealed claim 1.
The appellants’ arguments regarding Radhakrishnan as they
relate to appealed claim 1 are irrelevant, because this claim
has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by
3 For completeness, we attach a copy of Webster’s Third New
International Dictionary 875, for the definition of the root
term “flow.” The examiner’s definition of the term (answer, p.
4) is consistent with the meaning of the term as set forth in
the dictionary.
4 In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 1056, 44 USPQ2d 1023,
1027, 1029 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22,
13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007