Ex Parte Reitz et al - Page 19

               Appeal 2006-2776                                                                             
               Application 09/970,279                                                                       

               gaseous, vaporous or particulate reactants that are oriented to combine the                  
               reactants within a reaction chamber (Fig. 11; col. 15, ll. 19-46).  Thus,                    
               Lemelson generally provides that the reactants to be combined are in a fluent                
               condition (col. 1, ll. 37-41).  Notwithstanding Appellants’ contentions, we                  
               cannot say that the apparatus for supplying an aerosol form of reactants (a                  
               suspension of liquid or solid particles in a gas) of representative claim 25                 
               structurally distinguishes over the reaction system including the fluent                     
               material supply system disclosed and suggested by Lemelson with or                           
               without the additional teachings of Pratsinis.  Moreover, even if we could                   
               agree with Appellants that the reactants were a part of the system being                     
               claimed here, which we do not, aerosols are rather commonplace and known                     
               (Reply Br. 9).  One of ordinary skill in the art is presumed to have some skill              
               in furnishing the fluent particulate and liquid reactants that Lemelson                      
               describes, including the provision of these reactants in an aerosol form.  In                
               this regard, we note that Pratsinis clearly describes aerosols in the                        
               Background of the Invention section of the patent and Patentee clearly                       
               indicates that vapors formed via aerosolization are contemplated as a way of                 
               furnishing a reactant (col. 4, ll. 49-55).  On this record, Appellants have not              
               persuaded us of any patentably distinct requirement called for in the system                 
               of representative claim 25 that is not taught or suggested to one of ordinary                
               skill in the art by the applied references.                                                  
                      As for separately argued dependent claims 32 and 33, we agree with                    
               the Examiner, as we indicated above, that the aerosol reactants are not part                 
               of the claimed apparatus system and are entitled to little, if any patentable                
               weight.  Appellants assertion that the reactants are required to be stored as                
               part of the apparatus (Br. 7) is untenable in that no filled bottles or other                

                                                    19                                                      

Page:  Previous  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013