Appeal No. 2001-2650
Application No. 08/808,639
Claims 2, 26 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Shimizu.1
Claims 30-35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Shimizu in view of Azuma.
On page 4 of the brief, appellants state that the claims
are grouped as follows: Group (I) is directed to claims 2, 26
and 27, and Group (II) is directed to claim 30-35.
Appellants state that the claims of each group stand or
fall separately from each other. On page 2 of the answer, the
examiner states that appellants’ brief includes a statement
that claims 2, 26 and 27 are argued separately and do not stand
or fall with claims 30-35. We therefore consider each of the
independent claims 2, 26, 27, and 30. 37 CFR 1.192(c)(7) and
(c)(8)(2000).
OPINION
I. The rejection of claims 2, 26, and 27
Appellants do not dispute the examiner’s findings and
conclusions with regard to the steps of producing ozone,
storing, and taking out stored ozone, as recited in claim 2.
Appellants argue that claim 2 is distinguishable because it
requires that the ozone concentration in the compressed state
is in a range of from 7 to 15% by weight. Appellants state
that this recited range provides a 50% or greater ozone storage
efficiency. (brief, pages 4-5).
1 Claim 2 was inadvertently omitted from the statement of the rejection in
the answer, as evidenced by the discussion of claim 2 in the body of the
rejection in the answer at page 4. As appellants have recognized, claim 2
is rejected (brief, page 4; reply, pages 3-4). Hence, we include claim 2 in
this rejection.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007