Appeal No. 96-1225
Application 08/107,696
Claims 1, 3, 5-13, 15, 16 and 18-23 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combined teachings
of Jackson ‘189, Hoy, Jackson ‘619 and Nishikawa.
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments
advanced by appellant and the examiner and agree with
appellant that the aforementioned rejections are not well
founded. Accordingly, we
do not sustain these rejections. Under the provisions of 37
CFR § 1.196(b), we enter new grounds of rejection of claims 1,
3, 6, 18 and 22.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
The examiner argues (answer, page 4):
In claim 1, the recitation of "mechanically
circulated" is indefinite, because it does not show
how to mechanically circulate the liquefied or super
critical gas. Claim 2 [sic, 1?] is very broad and
it can read on any mechanically circulated means.
In claim 1, line 9, "varied" is indefinite term,
because appellant does not show how the velocity
will be varied.
These rejections clearly are improper. Consequently, we
reverse them without further comment.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007