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