Appeal No. 2004-0655
Application No. 09/740,721
product by process limitations in nature and do not further limit
the structure" (page 1 of Request). It should be clear from our
decision, however, that appellants mischaracterize our analysis.
In relevant part the decision states:
As urged by appellants and conceded by the examiner in
the Answer, each claim limitation must be considered in
determining patentability. In the present case,
placing the claim language at issue in a light most
favorable to appellants, we will interpret the claim
language as defining a property of the claimed device.
However, it cannot be gainsaid that the language "for
processing and fabrication and operation" is of
considerable breadth, and we agree with the examiner's
analysis that the claim language encompasses using the
device at normal, ambient temperatures.
(Paragraph bridging pages 5 and 6 of decision). The thrust of
our decision is that there is substantial evidence of record to
reasonably support the conclusion that the devices disclosed by
Aratani and Dimitrakopoulos possess the claimed property. The
decision states "[a]s explained by the examiner, appellants have
pointed to no difference in structure between the claimed and
prior art devices, nor have appellants proffered any objective
evidence which demonstrates that the devices of Aratani and
Dimitrakopoulos do not, in fact, possess the claimed property"
(page 7 of decision, first paragraph).
As for appellants' argument that the disclosure of the
temperature range 150-400°C by Dimitrakopoulos does not
anticipate the claimed range of 25-150°C, see Ex parte Lee,
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007