Appeal No. 2003-0304
Application 09/703,302
support of the rejection, and to appellant’s brief (Paper No. 12,
filed April 2, 2002) and reply brief (Paper No. 14, filed June
24, 2002) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant’s specification and claims, to
the applied prior art Mirville patent, and to the respective
positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we have made the determinations which
follow.
While it is true that the schematic drawings of the present
application (Figs. 1-8) and the schematic representations of the
air-hydrogen turbo-jet engines of Figures 1-8 in the Mirville
patent appear to be identical, we agree with appellant that when
the explanation provided by the present specification is read and
associated with the reference numbers in the schematic drawings
of the present application, one of ordinary skill in the art
would clearly differentiate the disclosed invention of the
present application from that described and claimed in the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007