Appeal No. 2002-1649 Page 3
Application No. 09/405,781
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3, 6, 7, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by, or in
the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Goswami. Claims 1 and 3-14 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Yamanaka. Claims 2, 10, 11, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goswami. Claims 2 and 10 also stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Goswami in view of Dimitrik. Claims 15 and 21 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yamanaka. We reverse the decision of the
Examiner with respect to all the rejections for the following reasons.
OPINION
Claim 1 recites “a heater means located in said reactor for drawing air into said reactor by
convection and causing said air to rise past said photocatalyst before being expelled.” Claim 10,
the only other independent claim, recites “a heater means in the device near this opening for
heating air entering the device and causing this air to rise past the illuminated photocatalyst.”
Because these limitations are expressed in “means plus function” language and because they do
not recite definite structure in support of the recited function, they are subject to the requirements
of 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶ 6. B. Braun Med., Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424, 43 USPQ2d
1896, 1899 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007