Appeal 2006-2776
Application 09/970,279
we find no discouragement with respect to using a shielding gas port in
Lemelson.
Thus, we affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 27 as
unpatentable over Lemelson in view of Rice.
Rejection of Claims 22, 23, 25, 26, 32, and 33
Finally, we turn to the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 22,
23, 25, 26, 32, and 33 over Lemelson in view of Pratsinis.
We note that Appellants make the same arguments for claims 25 and
26 (Group 2) as they make for claims 22 and 23 (Group 2). Br. 6-7. Thus,
we consider these claims together and select claim 25 as the representative
claim.
Representative claim 25 depends from claim 21 and further requires
that the reactant delivery apparatus comprises two aerosol delivery
apparatuses oriented to combine these reactant streams along the reaction
chamber reaction path. The Examiner notes that the provision that the
reactant delivery apparatus is an aerosol delivery apparatus represents a
possible difference over the disclosure of Lemelson. In this regard, as we
noted above, Lemelson describes the delivery of fluent chemicals via the
reactant inlets thereof including gaseous, liquid, vaporous or plasma state
reactants, as well as particulates. See Lemelson at col. 1, ll. 37-56, col. 4, ll.
63-68, and col. 11, l. 61-col. 12, l. 6. The Examiner refers to Pratsinis for a
teaching of apparatus for introducing a fluent material into the vapor phase
via aerosolization (aerosol delivery apparatus). See Pratinis, col. 4, ll. 49-52.
The Examiner asserts that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to employ aerosol delivery apparatus as the reactant delivery
17
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013