Appeal No. 2005-2239
Application No. 10/448,905
present or required. (See the examples in col. 6).
Consequently, we determine that Hung’s plasma gas does not
include carbon monoxide gas. Thus, for the reasons stated above
and in the Answer, the Examiner’s rejection is affirmed.
Claims 1, 13, 14, 21, 33, 37 and 38 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Tsai.5 We affirm the
rejection of claims 1, 13, 21, 33, 37 and 38. However, we
reverse of claim 14.
Regarding claim 1, Appellants rely on the same argument as
presented in the discussion of the Hung reference. That is,
Tsai does not expressly disclose that its gas plasma is devoid
of carbon monoxide and therefore, Tsai must inherently include
carbon monoxide. (Brief, p. 11). Here again, Appellants have
not directed us to evidence that establishes that Tsai
necessarily includes carbon monoxide gas. Appellants have not
directed us to evidence that establishes that carbon monoxide
gas would have conventionally been used in the system of the
type discussed in Tsai. As such, Appellants have not
5For this ground of rejection, Appellants have presented
separate arguments for claims 1 and 14. The discussion of claim
21 on page 12 of the principal Brief is the same as the arguments
presented for claim 1. Thus, for this ground of rejection we
will limit our discussion to claims 1 and 14.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007