Appeal No. 2002-0249
Application No. 09/321,390
reforming process, we concur with the examiner that there is
ample suggestion to use the claimed catalysts in the autothermal
reforming assembly of Clawson. See the Answer, page 7. The
appellant has not challenged the examiner’s findings and
conclusions regarding obviousness of using the reforming
catalysts taught in Setzer ‘484 (corresponding to that recited in
claims 1 and 7) in the autothermal reforming assembly of Clawson.
Compare the Answer, page 7, with the appellant’s Brief and Reply
Brief in their entirety.
The appellant argues that Clawson does not disclose a fuel
gas inlet passage disposed “in heat exchange relationship” with a
processed fuel gas stream in an outlet passage from a catalyst
bed as required by claim 1. We do not agree.
We initially note that in so arguing, the appellant fails to
give words in the claims on appeal the broadest reasonable
interpretation in light of the specification. See, e.g., In re
Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir.
1997). We also note that the appellant’s argument fails to take
into account the transitional phrase “comprising” in claim 1 on
appeal, which permits the presence of catalysts in a fuel inlet
passage. In re Baxter, 656 F.2d 679, 686-87, 210 USPQ 795, 802-
03 (CCPA 1981). When the claimed fuel inlet passage is properly
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007