Appeal 2006-2776
Application 09/970,279
of inlets to an elongated reaction chamber reaction path wherein reactants
from the inlets intersect (Answer 4 and 9; Lemelson, Fig.’s 1 and 11; col. 15,
ll. 19-46). Lemelson discloses an elongated reaction path (col. 14, ll. 5-12).
To the extent it is argued that representative claim 36 requires a patentable
difference in shape of the reaction path or a non-obvious difference in the
reactant inlet configuration over that disclosed by Lemelson, the Examiner’s
position seems to be that no such difference is required by the claim
language. Lemelson is provided as evidence of the skill in the art. Hence,
the Examiner has determined that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to form the reaction system of Lemelson with a
plurality of reaction inlets as disclosed therein with the result of a
configuration of inlets and a predictable combined reactant stream formed,
as here being claimed.
Appellants, on the other hand, contend that Lemelson does not teach
or suggest elongated reaction inlets or their orientation in the Brief (Br. 5).
Then, in the reply brief, Appellants maintain that “claims 36 and 37 are
directed to a reactant flow that is elongated with respect to its cross-section
perpendicular to its flow. The path from the inlet to the outlet is along the
flow and not perpendicular to the flow” (Reply Br. 6).
Have Appellants demonstrated reversible error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of representative claim 36 based on their contentions
set forth in the Brief and Reply Brief? We answer this question in the
negative. We affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 36 and
37. Our reasoning follows.
At the outset, we note that representative claim 36 does not require
any particular elongation with respect to the reaction inlets, as argued in the
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013