Appeal No. 95-2347 Page 5
Application No. 07/928,642
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we find that we are
in agreement with the examiner and will sustain the
rejections.
REJECTION OF CLAIMS 5 AND 6 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 102/103
According to the examiner (answer, page 5), Chen
describes the reactor structure defined by claims 5 and 6 . 3
In the
examiner's view, the structure required by the claimed "means
for circulating fluid..." has been taught by the gas manifold
cooling means of Chen (answer, page 5).
3We note that appellants have not furnished separate
arguments regarding why claims 5 and 6 should not stand or
fall together with respect to this rejection. Nor have
appellants stated that these claims do not stand or fall
together. Accordingly, we consider these claims to stand or
fall together with respect to this rejection. See 37 CFR §
1.192(c)(5) (1993).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007