Appeal No. 2005-0243
Application No. 10/106,951
“position[ed] . . . within a substantially hermetically
sealed environment.” Indeed, the Decision fails to
even mention this feature, instead treating claim 2 as
if it were one and the same as claim 1 . . . .
If the pipe is the substrate, at most according to
the reasoning of the Decision a side of the
pipe/substrate may be “position[ed] . . . within a
substantially hermetically sealed environment.” But of
course, that is not what claim 2 recites. Applicants
respectfully submit that is [sic] it is very clear from
Moore that the substrate/pipe itself is never
“position[ed] . . . within a substantially hermetically
sealed environment.” And so, the arrangement of Moore
cannot possibly anticipate the method of claim 2.
We agree with appellants’ arguments. The anticipation
rejection of claim 2 is reversed because Moore is incapable of
“positioning a substrate within a hermetically sealed
environment.”
Turning to claim 15, appellants argue (request, pages 3 and
4) that Moore does not disclose the apparatus features recited in
this claim. The claimed “first chamber” makes this claim more
specific than claim 1. Thus, the anticipation rejection of claim
15 is reversed because Moore does not have such a chamber in
which “a substantially inert atmosphere can be generated.” The
anticipation rejection of claims 16 through 18 is reversed
because they depend from claim 15.
Turning next to claims 1 and 23, appellants argue (request,
page 5) that Moore does not disclose measuring any permeation
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007