Appeal 2006-2359
Application 09/931,177
1) Claims 1, 5 through 10, 26 through 29, and 32 through 35 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the disclosure of U.S. Patent
6,168,765 issued to Romatier et al on January 2, 2001 (hereinafter referred
to as “Romatier”); and
2) Claims 3, 4, 25, 30 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combined disclosures of Romatier and U.S. Patent 5,031,693 issued
to VanDyke on July 16, 1991(hereinafter referred to as “VanDyke”).
Although the Examiner has included only Romatier and VanDyke in the
statements of rejection, the Examiner has also referred to other prior art
references in the body of the rejections at pages 5, 7, and 8 of the Answer
and listed the other prior art references below the “Evidence Relied Upon”
section of the Answer. Therefore, it is not clear from the record whether the
Examiner has intended to exclude or rely on the other prior art references in
support of his rejections.
At page 4 of the Answer, the Examiner has further referred to “ASME
design requirement” to support the position that “conventional plate-type
reactor has boundary jacket pieces or plate closures to fasten and seal the
plate channels together….” The Examiner, however, has not identified any
prior art references or taken official notice to support the prior art status of
the “ASME design requirement.”
In response to the Examiner’s rejections, the Appellants assert (Br. 4-
5) that:
… Appellants’ claims recite that the reactor has lateral
boundary areas which are jacket pieces, and that these jacket
pieces, together with the channels, plates, and collectors, form a
pressure-resistant cuboid block….
….
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013