Appeal 2007-0879
Application 09/793,209
operatively connected to one of the gas mixing chamber and the reaction
chamber; and
means for adjusting, if necessary, the flow rates of the organic metal
gases on the basis of results of the measurement.
The ground of rejection advanced on appeal encompassing these
claims is not explained in the Answer mailed June 25, 2007 (Answer 7). We
find the ground of rejection set forth in the Final Action mailed May 6, 2005
(Final Action 2-11).
In the Final Action, the Examiner finds that certain disclosures of
Barbee teach “means for mixing” and “means for supplying” with respect to
claim 15 and 22 (Final Action 4 and 5). The Examiner finds Barbee’s
teachings don’t include the limitations of claims 17, 18, 24 and 25 (id. 6-7).
The Examiner does find that certain disclosure of DeSisto corresponds to
“means for measuring,” “means for adjusting” and “means for comparing”
with respect to claims 15 and 22 (id. 9-10). The Examiner determines it
would have been obvious to add the disclosure of DeSisto to that of Barbee
(id. 11). The Examiner maintains these positions in responding to
Appellants’ arguments (id., e.g., 16-17).
In the Brief, Appellants point out the passages in the Specification by
page and line number with reference to Figures they contend disclose the
structures corresponding to the “means” limitation in claims 15 and 22 (Br.
5). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(v) (2006). In the section “Grounds of
Rejection to be Reviewed on Appeal,” Appellants state the issue whether the
“means for mixing” limitation of claims 15 and 22, under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
sixth paragraph, is entitled to patentable weight (id. 6). Appellants further
contend claims 15 and 22 “utilized applicant’s right to claim the invention
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013