Appeal No. 2006-0316
Application 10/428,930
preform in the area of the preform to be heated,” which is the function of the “means” included
with the plasma torch. Therefore, we determine that plasma torch 1 of Nath would not have
performed the specified step of “injecting a gas which is substantially free of silica particles
between the plasma torch and said preform . . . in the area of an outside surface of said preform
on which said plasma impinges . . . to thereby reduce the power of said plasma in said area” as
required in claim 2 (emphasis supplied) (see brief, pages 14-15; reply brief, pages 7-8).
Accordingly, in view of our finding that the written description in the specification,
including the drawings, describes “corresponding structure” to the “plasma torch” specified in
claim 2 within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, we determine that the examiner
has not established a prima facie case of the failure of claims 2 through 4 and 6 to comply with
this statutory provision and thus, reverse this ground of rejection. Further, because Nath does
not describe a structure that is “equivalent” to said “corresponding structure” to the “plasma
torch” specified in claim 2, we determine that the examiner has not established a prima facie
case of anticipation of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over this reference, and a prima facie
case of obviousness of claims 3, 4 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over this reference alone and
as combined with the other applied references, and thus, reverse these grounds of rejection.
Claim 9 does not contain the same limitation on the structure of the plasma torch as claim
2 but does specify “the step of injecting a gas which is substantially free of silica particles
between the plasma torch and said preform . . . in the area of an outside surface of said preform
on which said plasma impinges . . . to thereby reduce the power of said plasma in said area”
(emphasis supplied). We found above that the written description and Fig. 1 of Nath would not
have disclosed injecting a gas in said position to one of ordinary skill in this art (see answer,
page 6, seventh full paragraph, to page 9, l. 2, and page 16, second full paragraph, to page 17,
second full paragraph; see brief, pages 14-15; reply brief, pages 7-8). Accordingly, we
determine that the examiner has not established a prima facie case of anticipation of claim 9
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over this reference, and a prima facie case of obviousness of claims
10, 11 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over this reference alone and as combined with the other
applied references, and thus, reverse these grounds of rejection.
The examiner’s decision is reversed.
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007