Appeal No. 1997-0305
Application No. 08/286,085
and a means for receiving and trapping the hydrogen gas which permeates the
membrane-based means.
Appellants submit at page 3 of the brief that they "do not believe that any special
grouping of the claims lead to a better understanding of the issues." Since appellants
have not presented a separate argument for any particular claim on appeal, the examiner
properly found that all the appealed claims stand or fall together.
Appealed claims 1, 3, 6 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Doshi. Appealed claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Doshi in view of Reilly, and claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Doshi in view of Dittrich. In addition, claims 7 and 8 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Doshi in view of Ekiner,
whereas claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Doshi
in view of Kusuki.
Upon careful consideration of the opposing arguments presented on appeal, it is
our view that the examiner's rejections are not sustainable.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1, 3, 6 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
over Doshi. We agree with appellants that Doshi fails to describe within the meaning of §
102 the claimed "means for receiving and trapping the hydrogen gas which is separated
from the gas mixture." As pointed out by appellants, the process of Doshi
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007