Appeal No. 2000-01345
Application 09/097,176
hindsight is persuasive.
Therefore, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 1 and 4 as being unpatentable over
Pfefferle in view of Retallick.
Claims 2 and 3 and claims 5 and 6 depend, respectively, from
claims 1 and 4. In short, Richardson’s disclosure of a liquid
fuel combustion apparatus does not overcome Pfefferle’s failure
to respond to the “non-catalytic” limitations in parent claims
1 and 4. 3
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 2, 3, 5 and 6 as being unpatentable
over Pfefferle in view of Richardson.
3 Inasmuch as the examiner relied on Retallick to meet the
“non-catalytic” limitations in parent claims 1 and 4, it is
unclear why Retallick was not applied in support of the
rejection of dependent claims 2, 3, 5 and 6 which incorporate
all of the limitations of their respective parent claims.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007