Appeal 2006-3385
Application 10/407,401
structurally or functionally connected to the reactors located in an outer
housing (the cabinet) or are heat exchangers formed as part of a reactor
housing. (Answer 11-12) (citing Krause [0042] and [0048], Allen [0042]
and [0045-0046]). The Examiner concludes that because the main objective
of these cooling elements is to cool the synthesis gas or the reactor itself, the
interior of the outer housing (the cabinet) is necessarily cooled as well.
Second, the Examiner maintains that because cooling takes place inside the
outer housing (the cabinet) in Krause and Allen, further cooling of the
interior of the cabinet occurs due to heat conduction, heat convection and
heat radiation from one member to another, i.e., the cooling step itself also
cools down the immediate vicinity of the reactor in the interior of the outer
housing (the cabinet) by heat transfer including heat conduction, heat
convection and heat radiation. (Answer 12).
We find that the Examiner has provided a well-reasoned basis for
concluding that the claimed and prior art apparatuses are identical or
substantially identical. Therefore, the Examiner properly shifted the burden
to Appellants to prove that the structures disclosed in Krause and Allen do
not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed apparatus (Answer
13-14). See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1477, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See
also, In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Appellants have not presented persuasive arguments or evidence to refute
the Examiner’s showing that the housings of Krause and Allen would
inherently cool the processor reactor and the interior of the cabinet
containing the fuel processor. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 36-39,
42, 43 and 49-51 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Krause and the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013