Appeal 2007-0166
Application 10/195,757
The Appellants disagree with the Examiner’s finding (Br. 6). The
Appellants argue that contrary to the Examiner’s finding, Yadav does not
teach or suggest generating an aerosol containing solid metallic
microparticles (id.).
The dispositive question is, therefore, whether Yadav teaches or
would have suggested generating an aerosol containing solid metallic
microparticles prior to introducing it into a microwave plasma reactor within
the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103. On this record, we answer this question in
the negative.
As is apparent from pages 3 and 4 and of the Answer, the Examiner
assumes that Yadav’s metal containing emulsion is a liquid containing metal
particles, which, upon atomization or suspension in a gas, forms an aerosol
containing metal particles. This assumption, however, is not supported by
substantial evidence. Yadav, at column 4, lines 29-37, states that:
The precursor may be a gas, single phase liquid, multiphase
liquid, a melt, fluid mixtures and combinations thereof.
Illustration of precursors includes but does not limit to metal
acetates, metal carboxylates, metal ethanoates, metal
alkoxide…metal salts soluble in organics or water, and metal
containing emulsions. [Emphasis added.]
Yadav again refers to metal containing emulsions in the context of atomizing
them in a mixing apparatus or suspending them in a gas (col. 6, ll. 51-64).
Yadav then exemplifies supplying emulsions containing dissolved metals
(liquid form) directly into a plasma reactor or suspending them in argon or
oxygen before introducing them into a plasma reactor (col. 8 to col. 11). As
correctly argued by the Appellants (Br. 6-7), Yadav, as a whole, clearly
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013