Appeal No. 2002-1612
Application No. 09/048,984
screen of Zenz is not directly downstream of the loading channel,
as claimed, we do note that the louver and screen of Zenz do not
function such that the catalyst material enters on one side of
the guide plate. We interpret the claim language "catalyst
material . . . enters on one side of the reaction guide plate" in
light of the specification drawing as requiring that the catalyst
material come in contact with one side of the guide plate which
is opposite the side which contacts the entering gas stream.
Consequently, when we consider the claimed invention as a whole
and the Zenz disclosure as a whole, we find that Zenz fails to
describe the claimed reformation reactor within the meaning of
35 U.S.C. § 102. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the examiner's
rejection. As for the examiner's rejection of claim 3 under
35 U.S.C. § 103, which cites Yoshikawa for the added limitations
of claim 3, we find that Yoshikawa does not remedy the basic
deficiency of Zenz described above.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007