Appeal No. 97-0742
Application 08/427,775
concerned with preventing condensation of steam on the inner wall
72 of hood 7, there is nothing in this reference, or in Ecker,
which would indicate that condensation on other parts of the
printing apparatus which are in contact with and surrounded by
ambient air poses a problem. In this light, it is apparent that
the examiner has engaged in an impermissible hindsight
reconstruction of the appellants’ invention wherein the claims
have been used as a template to selectively pick and choose from
among isolated disclosures in the prior art. Thus, even if Ecker
is assumed for the sake of argument to be analogous art (the
appellants argue that it is not), it does not overcome the above
noted deficiency of Mitter vis-a-vis the subject matter recited
in claim 1.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 rejection of claim 1, or of claims 2 through 18, 20 and 21
which depend therefrom, as being unpatentable over Mitter in view
of Ecker.
Nor shall we sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection
of claim 19, which ultimately depends from claim 1, as being
unpatentable over Mitter in view of Ecker, and further in view of
Weimer. In short, Weimer’s disclosure of an inductive coil
heating means in a reactor for producing aluminum nitride (see
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007