Appeal 2006-2359
Application 09/931,177
… The lateral areas of the reactor embodiment disclosed by US
‘765 are distributors/collectors, not jacket pieces. Thus, US
‘765 provides no disclosure or suggestion of lateral boundary
areas that are jacket pieces, and which form a pressure-resistant
cuboid block together with channels, plates, and collectors.
To address this assertion, the Examiner must necessarily define the
meanings of the phrases “cuboid block” and “lateral boundary areas are
jacket pieces, which form a pressure-resistant cuboid block with said
channels, plates, and with collectors…” recited in claim 1. However, we
cannot ascertain from the Answer the meanings of these claim limitations.
Specifically, the Examiner has not clearly explained in the Answer:
1) Why the phrase “cuboid block” encompasses the structure described in
Romatier; and
2) Why and how the phrase “lateral boundary areas are jacket pieces, which
form a pressure-resistant cuboid block with said channels, plates, and with
collectors….” encompasses the structure illustrated in Romatier’s Figure 1
(The Examiner, for example, has not explained how many lateral jacket
pieces and collectors are included as part of the claimed pressure-resistant
reactor walls).
Upon return of this application to the Examiner’s jurisdiction, the
Examiner must:
1) Define the claim limitations in question and explain how and why they
embrace the reactor structure described by Romatier;
2) Identify clearly the prior art references relied upon to reject the claims on
appeal in the statements of rejection; and
3) Identify clearly the source supporting the prior art status of the “ASME
design requirement” in the statements of rejection. Any prior art references
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013