Appeal 2006-2776
Application 09/970,279
erred in failing to take into account, and/or with respect to which the
Examiner allegedly misinterprets the applied prior art. It is asserted in the
Brief that:
Appellants' claim 21 specifies that "a light source is
configured to direct a light beam at the combined reactants
along the reactant path." In contrast, the Lemelson patent
teaches the plurality of reactant inlets (13 and 13' in Fig. 1 and
97 and 98 in Fig. 11) directed at opposite sides of the light
beam (17', 18' and 19' in Fig. 1 and 95 in Fig. 11). Thus, in the
Lemelson patent, the reactants do not combine along a reactant
path before interacting with the light beam. To accomplish
this, the plurality of reactant inlets would have to be on the
same side of the light beam and NOT on opposite sides of the
light beam. Since this feature is not taught by the Lemelson
patent, the Lemelson patent clearly does not prima facie
anticipate Appellants' claimed invention.
Br. 3.
Consequently, the issues before us with respect to the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection are: (1) whether Appellants have identified reversible
error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection based on the assertion that
Lemelson fails to describe structure corresponding to a representative claim
21 requirement for a reaction system with a light source configuration
relative to the recited reactant delivery apparatus and reaction chamber such
that the light beam emitted from that light source could not interact with
reactants along a reactant path before the reactants are combined; and (2)
whether Appellants have otherwise identified reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 21 and/or in the rejection of
other separately argued claims in their Brief or Reply Brief? We answer
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013