Appeal 2006-3385
Application 10/407,401
ISSUES
I. Appellants contend that the claim language "a coolant subsystem
capable of cooling the processor reactor and the interior of the cabinet"
requires the presence of structural elements that would enable the cooling of
both the processor reactor and the interior of the cabinet that houses the
reactor and thus distinguishes the invention from the apparatuses of the prior
art. (Br. 5). The Examiner contends that this language is merely a recitation
of how the claimed apparatus is intended to be used and that this feature is
inherent in the prior art apparatuses. The issue for us to decide is: Has the
Examiner provided sufficient evidence to establish that the claimed and prior
art apparatuses are identical or substantially identical? And, if so, have the
Appellants demonstrated that the prior art apparatuses are not necessarily
capable of cooling both a processor reactor and the interior of a cabinet
containing the reactor and other constituent elements of the fuel processor?
For the reasons discussed below, we answer the first part of this
question in the affirmative and the second part in the negative.
II. The Examiner contends that it would have been obvious to have
combined the teachings of Allen with JP ‘365 or Clawson to achieve the
claimed invention. Appellants contend that the Examiner has failed to
identify any teachings in the references which establish that the prior art
structures could be combined in the manner claimed. The issue for us to
decide is: Has the Examiner properly identified the claimed features of
Appellants’ apparatus in the prior art and explained the motivation, teaching
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013