Appeal No. 2003-0659
Application 09/463,540
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Hartweg in view of Martin
The examiner argues that Hartweg and Martin disclose the
step and device recited in the appellant’s claims for
periodically injecting reducing gases (answer, pages 4-6). This
argument is not well taken for the reasons given above regarding
the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Hartweg and the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Martin in view of Alcorn.
Thus, we conclude that the examiner has not established a
prima facie case of obviousness of the invention claimed in any
of the appellant’s claims over the combined teachings of Hartweg
and Martin.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007