Appeal No. 2001-0379
Application No. 09/141,891 Page 13
containing a flammable gas into said cavity and igniting the
flammable gas by said ignitor means (col. 8, lines 13-24).
We turn next to claims 16-18 and 20. We reverse the
rejection of these claims based on our earlier findings with
respect to claim 1, supra. With regard to claim 17, we add that
we find no suggestion in the prior art, and none has been
provided by the examiner, for stopping the gas mixture in a time
period of less than 0.5 second when the temperature sensor
detects a temperature rise. Accordingly, the rejection of claims
16-18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
We turn next to independent claim 21. We find that the
prior art does not suggest the limitations of claim 21 because,
as we found earlier with respect to claim 1, the prior art to
Kern and Cox do not teach or suggest “a gas evacuation means in
fluid communication with said gas outlet of the reactor chamber
capable of withdrawing a gas mixture containing a flammable gas
from said chamber at a flow speed of at least 5 meter/second.”
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 21 and claims 22-28 and 30,
dependent therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims
1-7, 9, 14, 16-18, 20, 21-28, and 30 under 35 U.S.C.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007