Appeal 2006-2776 Application 09/970,279 This line of argument is unpersuasive for at least two reasons: (1) As we determined above, representative claim 21 is not limited to a reaction system arrangement which would only permit a method of operation wherein two or more matter streams are intersected prior to the intersection of a laser beam therewith; and (2) the Examiner’s factual determination that Lemelson describes a system wherein two or more matter streams can be combined or intersected prior to intersecting them with a radiation beam (laser) at column 15, lines 19-46, particularly lines 29-34 and col. 1, lines 41-48 is found to be reasonable and supported by a fair reading of the Lemelson patent, as a whole. In this regard, Lemelson is not limited to the specifically depicted embodiments of the drawing figures. Lemelson describes an embodiment that would be embraced by representative claim 21, even if representative claim 21 had been narrowed by an amendment to conform to the arguments presented by appellants. For example, the disclosures at column 2, lines 57-62, column 16, lines 58-63 and claim 4 of the Lemelson patent lend support to the Examiner’s interpretation of Lemelson as being descriptive of a system wherein a radiation (laser) beam intersects the reactants after their combination. Thus, the argued for, but unclaimed, supposed distinction in light source configuration between the subject matter of claim 21 and the reaction system light source arrangement described by Lemelson is not persuasive of reversible error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection. Concerning rejected dependent claims 28 and 35, Appellants furnish additional separate arguments. Appellants maintain that Lemelson does not describe a system for combining three reactants along a reactant path (claim 28) or a system wherein the number of reactant inlets is greater than two, as 10Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013