Appeal No. 97-2414
Application 08/417,303
Brief” (Paper No. 11, mailed January 28, 1997) for the
examiner's reasoning in support of the above-noted rejections,
and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 8, filed September 10,
1996) and supplemental reply briefs (Paper Nos. 10 and 12) for
appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants’ specification and claims,
to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective
positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we have made the determinations
which follow.
Turning first to the examiner's rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), we share appellants’ view as
expressed on pages 2 and 3 of Paper No. 12 that Valyi does not
teach or suggest “a metallic porous matrix filling each [of a
plurality] of the fluid passages between said fluid inlet
region and said fluid outlet region” as set forth in
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007