Appeal No. 1997-1059
Application No. 08/305,733
injection accompanied by concomitant vibration and mixing” or
“by means of sparging” (page 2). However, the appealed claims
do not recite “saturation...by means of multiple needle
injection accompanied by concomitant vibration and mixing” or
“sparging.” In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1350, 213 USPQ 1, 5 (CCPA
1982). To the contrary, the appealed claims read on “mere
physical blanketing” as long as injection is used and the
claimed degree of saturation is met.
For the reasons stated above and in the answer, we affirm
the examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 28
through 53 as unpatentable over the admitted prior art.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection
with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007