Appeal No. 2005-2705 Παγε 5
Application No. 08/978,055
22-24 depending therefrom, as being unpatentable over Lewis or Westrick in view of
Lindberg.
The examiner's application of Spencer provides no cure for the deficiency of the
combination of Lewis or Westrick in view of Lindberg discussed above. It thus follows
that we also cannot sustain the rejection of dependent claims 4 and 13 as being
unpatentable over Lewis or Westrick in view of Lindberg and further in view of Spencer.
In rejecting claim 19, the examiner's position is that it would have been obvious
to use a diffuser as taught by Allen in the process of Lewis or Westrick because it
reduces the amount of gas usage and, further, that it would have been obvious to
modify that diffuser so that the upper and lower disk portions are attached by perforated
means as a matter of design choice (answer, page 6). Be that as it may, such a
modification would still not result in the subject matter recited in claim 19. Specifically,
such combination still does not address the limitations in claim 1, from which claim 19
depends, directed to the single vat opening and a tubular connector fitted into the
opening, with the connector having two passages comprising an inlet for the inerting
gas and an outlet for the excess gas and the side wall of the connector being provided
with a purge orifice.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007