Appeal No. 2004-1013
Application No. 09/985,553
a reducing gas containing at least hydrogen (appellants urge that
it would not have been obvious), the subject matter of claims 1, 12
and 13 would not result.
In light of the foregoing, we shall not sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 12 and 13, or claims 2-8 that depend from
claim 1, as being unpatentable over Balko in view of Oshima.
Turning to the rejection of claims 9 and 11 further in view of
Peter-Hoblyn and claim 10 further in view of Schnaibel,
consideration of the examiner’s rejection of these claims further
in view of Peter-Hoblyn or Schnaibel does not change our view
regarding the deficiencies of the basic Balko in view of Oshima
reference combination discussed above. Accordingly, we also shall
not sustain the standing rejection of claims 9 and 11 further in
view of Peter-Hoblyn and of claim 10 further in view of Schnaibel.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007