Appeal No. 2003-0079 Page 11
Application No. 09/532,114
We reach the same conclusion for the same reasons with respect to independent
claims 8 and 14 and dependent claims 10-13, for the independent claims contain the
same limitations as were discussed above with regard to claim 6. With regard to claim
14, we further point out that the evidence adduced by the examiner does not support
the conclusion that the valves and the control mechanism for regulating the flow rate of
the non-acetylene and acetylene fuels would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
(
in the art for application to the Ikeda system.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007