Appeal 2007-0130
Application 10/688,584
1 ISSUES
2 The first issue is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner
3 erred by determining that Chauffoureaux is relevant prior art and discloses a
4 microwave device as claimed.
5 The second issue is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner
6 erred in finding that Chauffoureaux discloses an unloading zone and a
7 reciprocating ram.
8 The third issue is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner
9 erred in holding that it would have been obvious to include a plurality of
10 microwave guides in the Chauffoureaux device.
11 The fourth issue is whether the Appellants have shown that the
12 Examiner erred in holding that the subject matter of claims 3-6 would have
13 been obvious in view of the teachings of Chauffoureaux in view of Wear and
14 Gerling because Gerling only discloses that the tube is tilted not the entire
15 oven.
16
17
18 FINDINGS OF FACT
19 Chauffoureaux discloses a microwave device that includes a loading
20 zone in the form of feed hopper 5' (Figure 2). A treatment section 1' is
21 included in communication with the loading section 5'. A microwave
22 generator 2' is disposed in the treatment section 1' which is capable of
23 directing microwaves into the material within the treatment section 1'
24 (Chauffoureaux, col. 5, ll. 46-47). The microwaves from the microwave
25 generator 2' are directed to the treatment section 1' through an unlabeled
26 structure (Figure 2). The unlabeled structure clearly directs the microwaves
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013