Appeal No. 2002-0064
Application No. 09/084,042
gas to a high temperature in order to eliminate noxious gas
constituents therefrom, thus making Pauletta’s device, at best,
unsuitable for its intended purpose. For this reason, the
standing rejection of claim 6-10, as well as claims 11 and
12 that depend from claim 10, as being unpatentable over Pauletta
in view of Yaron is not sustainable.
In addition, because we do not consider that the heat
exchanger of Pauletta constitutes a “regenerator” as claimed in
claim 1, from which claims 6-9 depend, we do not agree with the
examiner’s determination that Pauletta discloses the claimed
subject matter “with the exception of the claimed elements in
claims 6-9” (answer, page 4). Accordingly, even if Pauletta were
to be modified in the manner proposed by the examiner, the
subject matter of claims 6-9 would not result. This constitutes
an additional reason why the standing rejection of claims 6-9 is
not sustainable.
In light of the above, we will not sustain the standing
rejection of claims 6-12 as being unpatentable over Pauletta in
view of Yaron.
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007