Appeal No. 1998-0389 Page 5
Application No. 08/576321
reference that correspond to each of those recited in the appellants’ claims not been
identified, there has been no response to specific issues raised by the appellants in their
arguments. For example, the appellants allege that the means disclosed in the reference
are not concerned with “dynamically varying” the superheat of the melt steam “at a plurality
of cycles per second,” as is required in their claims, but merely establish and maintain a
steady rate of discharge from the nozzle (Brief, page 6). This argument was merely refuted
by the examiner, without pointing out where “dynamically varying” was taught in the
reference (Answer, page 4). With regard to the appellants’ question of where in Benz was
the teaching of varying the superheat of the melt stream (Brief, page 10), the examiner
supplied no answer at all. In response to the argument that one of the claimed means for
accomplishing the objectives of their invention resided in providing two induction heating
coils, whereas Benz discloses only one (Brief, page 9), the examiner stated that Benz did
show two induction coils in the form of “items 135 and 185" and that the Benz means
therefore were “identical” (Answer, page 4). However, although Benz admittedly states
that two such coils are present (column 9, line 53), coil “135" is not shown in the drawings,
nor is its operation explained, and this recitation in the patent would appear to be an error.
In any event, however, the mere presence of a second coil would not, ipso facto, establish
1(...continued)
IMS Technology, Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc., 206 F.3d 1422, 1436, 54
USPQ2d 1129, 1138-39 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007