Appeal No. 2001-2650
Application No. 08/808,639
On pages 7-8 of the answer, the examiner rebuts and states
that Shimizu “discloses that the condensing system (which is
the adsorption/desorption system), can have a higher ozone
concentration than 10 vol.% (which corresponds to 14 wt.%)”.
The examiner states that 14 wt.% falls within appellants’
claimed range of “7-15% by weight”.
On the top of page 5 of the brief, appellants do not
dispute that 10% by volume is equivalent to 14% wt. Appellants
argue, however, that this amount does not relate to the
“storage of ozone in a compressed state”.
On page 2 of the reply brief, appellants acknowledge that
the ozone generating and condensing apparatus of Shimizu
includes (1) the oxygen generator 1, (2) ozonizer 2, (3) an
ozone condensing unit 3 (which includes absorbing towers 7a and
7b), and (4) a reaction tower 4.
We find that because appellants acknowledge that absorbing
towers 7a and 7b are part of the ozone generation and
condensing apparatus, we find that when Shimizu discusses the
ozone concentration of the ozone generating and condensing
apparatus, this includes the ozone concentration found in the
absorbing towers, which is a location involving the “storage of
ozone in a compressed state”.
Hence, we agree with the examiner’s interpretation of
Shimizu set forth at the bottom of page 7 through page 8 of the
answer. We therefore agree with the examiner that Shimizu
makes obvious the recitation “wherein ozone concentration of
said ozonized gas upon storage thereof in the compressed state
is set in a range of 7-15% by weight”, as set forth in claim 2.
We therefore affirm the rejection of claim 2.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007