Appeal 2006-2776
Application 09/970,279
storage devices are specified in claims 32 or 33. Moreover, Appellants
broadly worded arguments to the effect that the particular reactants specified
in claims 32 and 33 can be afforded patentable weight rendering these
claims patentable over the applied references hardly explains why this is so.
Appellants have not explained why Lemelson’s reaction apparatus is not
capable of being used with common aerosol materials. In this regard,
Appellants do not say that steam and/or isopropyl alcohol are newly
discovered reactable materials. Certainly, Lemelson does not limit the
disclosed system for use in carrying out a particular reaction. Indeed,
“Appellants do not assert to have invented aerosol as a reactant within a
flowing reactor” (Reply Br. 8). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the
applied references make out a prima facie case of obviousness for the
claimed subject matter, which has not been persuasively refuted by
Appellants.
As another point, we note that no unexpected or unpredictable results
are alleged for the claimed subject matter.
It follows, that upon reconsideration of the question of the
obviousness of the claimed subject matter in light of the evidence of record
and contentions made for and against a determination of obviousness, it is
our view that, on balance, the evidence tilts in favor of an obviousness
determination. Consequently, we affirm the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claims 22, 23, 25, 26, 32, and 33 over Lemelson taken with
Pratsinis.
20
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013