Appeal No. 1999-0615
Application No. 08/786,974
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
As a further commentary on the examiner's rejection of
claims 1 through 5, 10, 12 through 14 and 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103, we note that it appears that the examiner has not
properly construed the "means for expanding the fire
suppressant foam" of independent claim 1 or the step of
"expanding the fire suppressant foam" as set forth in method
claim 12, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph.
Appellant has consistently argued with regard to these
limitations that the prior art relied upon by the examiner
fails to disclose any mechanism for mechanically agitating the
fire suppressant foam to expand the fire suppressant foam,
i.e., appellant has argued that the corresponding structure
and acts described in the specification distinguish the
claimed "means for expanding" in claim 1 and step of
"expanding" in claim 12 from the applied prior art references.
The examiner instead of providing a proper analysis under 35
U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, has merely asserted that
appellant has presented arguments that are "directed toward
features not claimed as argued" (answer,
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007