Ex parte RICHARDSON - Page 9




          Appeal No. 1997-2305                                                        
          Application 08/451,459                                                      


               For the above reasons, we affirm the rejection of claims               
          21-27.                                                                      
               Claims 28-30 require that the apparatus recited in claim               
          21 is combined with an internal combustion engine which                     
          receives fuel gas from the apparatus.  The examiner argues                  
          that combining Eldridge’s apparatus with a conventional end                 
          use apparatus such as an internal combustion engine was within              
          the skill in the art (answer, page 4).  This argument is not                
          persuasive because the examiner has provided no evidence that               
          one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellant’s                 
          invention would have considered Eldridge’s hydrogen-rich fuel               
          gas (page 1, lines 9-11) to be suitable as an internal                      
          combustion engine fuel.  Hence, we reverse the rejection of                 
          claims 28-30.                                                               
                                      DECISION                                        
               The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 11-20 and                
          28-30 over Eldridge is reversed.  The rejection under 35                    
          U.S.C. § 103 of claims 21-27 over Eldridge is affirmed.                     





                                          9                                           





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007