Appeal 2006-2776
Application 09/970,279
apparatus of Lemelson because the selection of alternative or “known
equivalent devices for introducing fluent material into vapor material would
have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art” (Answer 6).
In addition to arguments made against the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 21, Appellants additionally contend with respect to these
dependent claims that Pratsinis does not teach the provision of an aerosol
reactant and that the combination of Lemelson and Pratsinis does not render
the claimed subject matter of these dependent claims, including
representative claim 25, prima facie obvious (Br. 6-7). Moreover, with
respect to dependent claims 32 and 33, Appellants contend that these latter
claims relate to particular reactants stored by the reaction system and that the
applied references do not render such an apparatus prima facie obvious (Br.
7).
The additional issues raised in this appeal with respect to
representative claim 25 are: Have Appellants demonstrated reversible error
in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection by their assertion that neither of the
applied patents teach or suggest the provision of aerosol flows that are
combined within a reaction chamber? With regard to claims 32 and 33, the
additional issue is: Have Appellants demonstrated reversible error in the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection by asserting that the applied references do
not teach or suggest the additional apparatus features required by these
claims. We answer these questions in the negative and affirm the
examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 22, 23, 25, 26, 32, and 33 over
Lemelson in view of Pratsinis.
Considering representative claim 25, we again note that Lemelson
teaches the provision of reaction apparatus including two inlets for liquid,
18
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013