Appeal No. 1996-4174 Page 4
Application No. 08/134,204
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Binning. Claims
19-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Binning in view of Welch.
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 appellant and the examiner. This
review leads us to conclude that the examiner's § 102(b)
rejection of claims 14 and 15 is sustainable. However, we
will not sustain the examiner's § 103 rejections. Our reasons
for these determinations follow.
Rejection under § 102(b)
Appealed claims 14 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Binning. According to the
examiner, Binning fully meets the structure recited in these
claims including the claimed "elongate tubular reactor having
a substantially constant internal diameter..." (claim 14,
lines 3 and 4). Appellants’ argument with respect to this
rejection is solely focused on that claimed limitation. In
arguing against the examiner's contrary opinion regarding the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007