Appeal No. 2001-0379
Application No. 09/141,891 Page 12
disclosure of an electronic ignition trigger oscillator assembly,
we find that Cox teaches the claimed electronic ignition.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
is affirmed.
We turn next to claim 14. Claim 14 recites the step of
“stopping said gas mixture flow by a solenoid valve and flowing
ambient air into said cavity of the reactor chamber when said
temperature sensor detects a temperature rise in said cavity.”
We find that in Cox, when a rise in temperature is sensed, the
flow of the gas mixture to the reactor chamber is cut off, and
the non-combustible supporting gas CO2 flows into tub 20 (col. 8,
lines 25-30). Thus, Cox does not disclose the flowing of ambient
air into the cavity of the reactor in response to detection of a
rise in temperature. We also find no disclosure in Kern of
adding ambient air to the reactor chamber in response to a
buildup of pressure in the cavity. Accordingly, we find that the
examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness of claim 14. The rejection of claim 14 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) is therefore reversed.
We turn next to claim 15. We affirm the rejection of claim
15 because Cox discloses the step of flowing a gas mixture
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007