Ex Parte Reitz et al - Page 10

               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