Appeal No. 2000-0034
Application 08/473,634
illustrate the gas flow as being restricted into a portion of
the reaction chamber (figure 3). Because the examiner has not
established that this element of the appellants’ claim 33 is
found explicitly or inherently in Mundt, the examiner has not
established a prima facie case of anticipation by Mundt of the
method recited in that claim.
Rejection of claim 18 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Mundt
The examiner considers Mundt’s hollow cylindrical tube
(80) to be the appellants’ member, and argues that Mundt’s
plasma heats the tube (answer, page 4). The appellants’ claim
18, however, also requires that the chemical compound receives
heat from the member. Such heat transfer would take place
only if Mundt’s feed gas, after passing through the reactive
mesh and the glow discharge in annular passageway 68 (col. 9,
lines 1-4), is at a lower temperature than the hollow
cylindrical tube. Since the examiner has not established that
such a temperature differential exists, the examiner has not
carried the burden of establishing a prima facie case of
anticipation by Mundt of the method recited in claim 18.
Rejection of claim 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007