Appeal No. 2002-2184
Application No. 08/406,297
be referenced by specific names. (See Mcgraw-Hill Encyclopedia attached as Appendix
II.) While we do not find the specific terminology used in Gordon, III, we agree that
more likely than not, the teaching of Gordon, III does not teach or fairly suggest the use
of a predominantly carbon based material as the nozzle. Therefore, we cannot sustain
the rejection of independent claim 1 over Gordon, III in view of Hawley.
While the examiner has relied upon the teachings of various additional prior art,
the examiner has not identified any other teachings of a continuous body of carbon, nor
has the examiner provided a convincing line of reasoning why it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a continuous
body of carbon in the claimed manner. Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of
dependent claims 2-10, 22, and 24.
With respect to dependent claim 71, the examiner has not identified how
Hubbard remedies the deficiency in Yasuhara as noted above. Therefore, we cannot
sustain the rejection of dependent claim 71.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007