Appeal No. 94-1098
Application 07/712,581
same chemical provided on the substrate, as opposed to, for
example, a gaseous or vapor phase of a reactant produced by
compounds provided on the substrate. Since in Stenger the carbon
dioxide gas produced in heated zone 21 is either (1) a reactant
produced when non-volatile inorganic carbonates deposited on the
carbonate-reactive body 20 react with the acidic coating thereof,
or (2) dissolved carbon dioxide released directly into the
carrier gas stream by vaporizing volatile components of the
liquid, it cannot be said that Stenger’s carbon dioxide gas is
the gaseous or vapor phase of a chemical provided on the material
67. Nor does Stenger suggest modifying the method thereof to
provide for such a circumstance, in our view.
In light of the foregoing, we cannot sustain the § 103
rejection of claims 1, 6, 8-10, 25 and 29 as being unpatentable
over Stenger.
We have also reviewed the Munk, Jones and Gelman references
additionally relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
remainder of the appealed claims but find nothing therein which
makes up for the deficiencies of Stenger discussed above.
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 3, 26 and
27 as being unpatentable over Stenger and Munk, the rejection of
claims 5 and 28 as being unpatentable over Stenger and Jones, or
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007