Appeal 2006-2776
Application 09/970,279
Brief. Nor does representative claim 36 specifically define whether it is the
reactant path that is elongated in one dimension relative to the perpendicular
direction or whether it is the cross-section of the reaction stream that is
elongated in one dimension relative to the perpendicular direction. The
Examiner asserts the former in the Answer. Appellants assert the latter in
the Reply Brief. Appellants’ disclosed invention appears to broadly
encompass both (Specification 2-3, Fig. 2).
In light of the above, we determine that representative claim 36, given
its broadest reasonable construction as it would be understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art, encompasses both the Examiner’s and Appellants’
asserted claim interpretations. It follows that Appellants have not
established reversible error in the Examiner’s obviousness position. We
hasten to add that regardless of which feature the claim term “elongated” is
applied to, representative claim 36 broadly encompasses any extent of such
elongation, including a trivial or insignificant elongation in one dimension.
Hence, on this record, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claims 36 and 37 over Lemelson.
Rejection of Claim 27
Concerning the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claim
27, the Examiner turns to Rice for a teaching of the use of a shielding gas
port in a laser beam supplied reactor (Answer 6; Rice, col. 4, ll. 34-36). The
examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time of the invention to have employed a shielding gas port
in Lemelson’s reaction system, given the teachings of Rice and with the
expected result of limiting combined reactant stream spread.
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013