Appeal No. 2004-1481
Application No. 09/726,659
generically teaches the use of any “pressurized gas supply 18" to
move the fluid through the tubes to the nozzle (col. 2, ll. 51-52).
Appellant argues that On teaches a H2 gas while claim 9 on
appeal is limited to a nitrogen gas supply (Brief, page 12). This
argument is not well taken for reasons stated above and in the
Answer, although we note that appellant is confusing hydrogen with
the helium specifically disclosed by On (see Figure 2).
With regard to the rejection of claim 4, appellant does not
contest the examiner’s finding from DC Capacitive Sensors but
merely reiterates the arguments discussed above (Brief, page 13).
Accordingly, we adopt the examiner’s findings of fact and
conclusion of law regarding the rejection of claim 4 as noted in
the Answer.
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, we
determine that the examiner has established a prima facie case
of obviousness in view of the reference evidence. Based on the
totality of the record, including due consideration of appellant’s
arguments, we determine that the preponderance of evidence weighs
most heavily in favor of obviousness within the meaning of section
103. Accordingly, we affirm both of the examiner’s rejections
based on section 103(a).
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007