Appeal 2006-2776
Application 09/970,279
steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co.
Teleflex, Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007) quoting
In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1396 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see
also DyStar Textilfarben GmBH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co.,
464 F.3d 1356, 1361, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006)(“The
motivation need not be found in the references sought to be combined, but
may be found in any number of sources, including common knowledge, the
prior art as a whole, or the nature of the problem itself.”). The analysis
supporting obviousness, however, should be made explicit and should
“identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the
relevant field to combine the elements” in the manner claimed. KSR,
127 S. Ct. at 1732, 82 USPQ2d at 1389.
Rejection of Claims 36 and 37
Concerning the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claims
36 and 37 over Lemelson, Appellants argue the claims as a group. Thus, we
select claim 36 as the representative claim for this ground of rejection. The
Examiner has determined that the reaction system embraced by
representative claim 36 differs, if at all, from Lemelson’s explicit disclosure
by specifying a particular reactant inlet configuration (Answer 4). In this
regard, claim 36 requires a reactant inlet configuration capable of forming a
“combined reactant stream with a cross section perpendicular to the reactant
path that is elongated in one dimension relative to the perpendicular
direction” (appealed claim 36).
The Examiner has found that Lemelson discloses or suggests a
reaction system including a reactant delivery system comprising a plurality
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013