Ex Parte Reitz et al - Page 3

               Appeal 2006-2776                                                                             
               Application 09/970,279                                                                       

               32. The reactant delivery system of claim 25 wherein at least one of the                     
               aerosol reactants comprises water.                                                           
               35. The reactant delivery system of claim 21 wherein the plurality of                        
               reactant inlets is greater than two reactant inlets.                                         
                                                                                                           
                      The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence                 
               in rejecting the appealed claims:                                                            
               Rice  US 4,548,798 Oct. 22, 1985                                                             
               Lemelson US 4,702,808 Oct. 27, 1987                                                          
               Pratsinis US 5,861,132 Jan. 19, 19991                                                        
                      Claims 21, 24, 28-31, 34, and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.                       
               § 102(b) as being anticipated by Lemelson.  Claims 36 and 37 stand rejected                  
               under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lemelson.  Claims 22,                    
               23, 25, 26, 32, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being                      
               unpatentable over Lemelson in view of Pratsinis.  Claim 27 stands rejected                   
               under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lemelson in view of                      
               Rice.                                                                                        

                                     102(b) Rejection over Lemelson                                         
                      Anticipation by a prior art reference does not require that the                       
               reference recognize either the inventive concept of the claimed subject                      
               matter or the inherent properties that may be possessed by the prior art                     
               reference.  See Verdegaal Bros. Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 633,                    
               2 USPQ2d 1051, 1054 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987).  A                       
               prior art reference anticipates the subject matter of a claim when the                       
                                                                                                           
               1 Appellants do not dispute the availability of the subject matter of this                   
               patent as prior art to Appellants’ appealed claims.                                          
                                                     3                                                      

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013