Appeal No. 2003-0697
Application 09/750,088
consistent with the appellant’s specification disclosure. See In
re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.
1983). Finally, it is significant that the appellant has not
disagreed with this claim interpretation on the record before us.
In light of the foregoing, it is our determination that
the claims on appeal comply with the second paragraph of § 112 by
particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject
matter which appellant regards as his invention. This subject
matter includes air or a combination of air, liquids and solids
propelled or passed through a microwave active space as recited
in these claims. It follows that we cannot sustain the
examiner’s § 112, second paragraph, rejection of claims 1-8.
We reach a different conclusion with respect to the
§ 102 and § 103 rejections of claims 1-8 over Condit. As
correctly explained by the examiner in the Answer, a microwave
active space is included in the apparatus and process of Condit.
As a consequence, the air as well as airborne liquids and solids
which are passed through this apparatus are treated in such a
manner as to sterilize and/or disinfect microorganisms contained
in the air, liquids and/or solids. In this way, the air as well
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007