Appeal No. 1996-4174 Page 7
Application No. 08/134,204
construction with any evidence to support their supposition on
this matter.
On this record, after reconsideration in light of
appellants' arguments, we find ourselves in agreement with the
examiner's position regarding the appealed claims being
inclusive of the elongated tubular coil reactor construction
utilized by Binning in their apparatus for the reasons set
forth by the examiner in the answer and as further discussed
above. Appellants simply have not convinced us of any
reversible error in the examiner's stated § 102(b) rejection. 2
Accordingly, we sustain the examiner's rejection of
claims 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Rejections under § 103
Our disposition of the examiner's rejections under 35
U.S.C. § 103 is another matter. We observe that all of the
appealed claims that are rejected under § 103 require the
limitations recited in claim 16 including a tube-in-tube heat
2We note that appellants have not furnished any separate
arguments with respect to claim 15 regarding this rejection.
Thus, claims 14 and 15 stand or fall together with respect to
this rejection.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007