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
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013