Appeal No. 1997-3636
Application No. 08/584,642
In paragraph 4 of the first Office action (Paper No. 2),
to which the examiner refers in the answer (p. 2) for the
reasons supporting the rejection, the examiner identifies
Example 4 of Takagi as disclosing a process which, presumably,
he considers to be anticipatory of that claimed by appellant. 2
Appellant argues that Takagi does not anticipate because it
discloses using a vaporized starting material, while appellant
employs a molten starting material; also, Takagi does not
disclose treating a fluidic stream of molten material.
According to appellant (brief, p. 8):
Molten material implies a material in a liquid
phase. This is clear from the definition of
"molten" - "melted or liquefied by heat", Webster's
New World Dictionary of the American Language, 1976.
Hence, a molten material is clearly distinguishable
from a vaporized material which implies a gas phase.
It is fundamental that a claim is not anticipated unless
a prior art reference discloses every limitation of the
claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently. In re
Schreiber,
128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The examiner states that "applicant's process is at the2
very least an obvious variation of the reference process"
(Paper No. 2, p. 3).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007