Appeal No. 2003-0213
Application No. 09/255,712
degree of charging of the process and that neither reference
utilizes the extraction step to control or regulate the process.
Although Greul and Goto do not expressly so state, it is
manifestly self-evident from a fair reading of their disclosures,
and the appellants do not dispute, that the CO2 gas extraction
steps described therein do in fact directly affect the degree of
charging and the power of their associated processes. Thus, the
disclosed deliberate practice of such steps inherently regulates
the process to the extent broadly recited in claims 1 and 29.
For these reasons, the appellants’ position that the subject
matter recited in independent claims 1 and 29 distinguishes over
Greul and that the subject matter recited in claim 1
distinguishes over Goto is not persuasive. We shall therefore
sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1 and
29, and dependent claims 2, 4 through 6 and 27, as being
anticipated by Greul as well as the standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of claim 1 as being anticipated by Goto.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007