Ex parte LACOUNT - Page 12




                Appeal No. 97-1107                                                                                    Page 12                   
                Application No. 08/047,512                                                                                                      

                diverging cell and would have increased the purge rate in comparison with a cell without any directed                           

                gas flow.                                                                                                                       

                         Therefore, we conclude that the examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness                             

                with respect to the subject matter of claim 27 and that appellant has not sufficiently rebutted this prima                      

                facie case.                                                                                                                     



                                                             OTHER ISSUES                                                                       

                         Should prosecution on this case continue, we bring to the attention of the examiner a possible                         

                written description problem with respect to claim 26 and those claims dependent thereon.  These claims                          

                require that the cell body have “a uniform thickness non-porous wall.”  This language was not present in                        

                the original claims and we found no descriptive support in the specification for uniformity of the wall.                        

                Should the “uniform thickness” language be present in any of the claims further prosecuted, the                                 

                examiner should determine whether the written description required of 35 U.S.C.  112, first paragraph                          

                is violated.                                                                                                                    

                         It is also suggested that the examiner request a better copy of the Barnes reference, including                        

                page 19 of the catalog if it can be obtained.                                                                                   



                                                              CONCLUSION                                                                        










Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007