Appeal 2007-2040
Application 10/632,741
an anti-static liquid is not a structural limitation on the claimed apparatus.
Consequently, it is of no moment whether either of the applied references
characterizes the injected fluids as anti-static liquids. Moreover, we find no
error in the Examiner's finding that the aqueous solutions of Hodgens,
comprising chelating agents and/or surfactant compositions, qualify as anti-
static liquids, as broadly claimed. Likewise, we agree with the Examiner
that water itself and the liquids injected by Bartos qualify as antic-static
liquids. While Appellants disagree that the various liquids disclosed in the
references are anti-static liquids, Appellants have presented no argument
which demonstrates that anti-static liquids within the scope of the appealed
claims are materially different than the liquids disclosed by the references.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the Examiner's rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is reversed. However, the Examiner's §
102 rejections of all the appealed claims are sustained for the reasons well
stated by the Examiner. Consequently, the Examiner's decision rejecting the
appealed claims is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(iv)(effective Sept.
13, 2004).
AFFIRMED
cam
John S. Beulick
Armstrong Teasdale, LLP
Suite 2600
One Metropolitan Square
St. Louis, MO 63102
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5
Last modified: September 9, 2013