Appeal No. 2002-0249
Application No. 09/321,390
up to the reformer assembly while inhibiting carbon deposition in
catalyzed cells of said foam catalyst bed.
PRIOR ART
The examiner relies on the following prior art references2:
Narumiya et al. (Narumiya) 4,308,233 Dec. 29, 1981
Setzer et al. (Setzer ‘484) 4,415,484 Nov. 15, 1983
Setzer et al. (Setzer ‘578) 4,451,578 May 29, 1984
Sheller 5,384,099 Jan. 24, 1995
Bhattacharyya et al. (Bhatta) 5,498,370 Mar. 12, 1996
Clawson WO 98/08771 Mar. 5, 1998
(Published International Application)
REJECTION
The appealed claims stand rejected as follows:
1) Claims 1 through 7, 9 through 18 and 21 through 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for
failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter which the appellant regards as his invention;
2 We note that the examiner has referred to U.S. Patent
5,110,780 issued to Peters on May 5, 1992 (Peters) at page 15 of
the Answer. However, Peters is not among the references relied
upon by the examiner in his Section 103 rejections. In re Hoch,
428 F.2d 1341, 1342 n.3, 166 USPQ 406, 407 n.3 (CCPA 1970)
(“[w]here a reference is relied on to support a rejection,
whether or not in ‘a minor capacity,’ there would appear to be no
excuse for not positively including the reference in the
statement of the rejection”). Therefore, we will not consider it
in evaluating the examiner’s Section 103 rejections.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007