Appeal 2007-0130
Application 10/688,584
1 guides is not persuasive because we found above that Chauffoureaux itself
2 discloses the provision of a plurality of microwave guides making the
3 disclosure in Wear cumulative.
4 We are likewise not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the
5 Chauffoureaux reference is a Traveling Wave Applicator whereas the
6 Appellants’ invention is a Multi-mode Applicator because the argument is
7 not commensurate in scope with the recitations in claim 1 which does not
8 recite a Multi-mode Applicator.
9 In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
10 claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chauffoureaux in
11 view of Wear and Gerling.
12 We will also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2 because
13 Appellants have not argued the separate patentability of this claim.
14 Rejection of claims 3 to 6, 8 and 9
15 In regard to the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. §
16 103, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Gerling does not
17 disclose that the oven is tilted because this argument is not commensurate in
18 scope with the recitation in the claims. Claim 3 recites that the treatment
19 section may be tilted. The tube of Gerling, which is tilted, is the treatment
20 section of Gerling. We are not persuaded by the Appellants’ argument that
21 the material in Gerling is not in physical contact with the part of the device
22 that includes the microwave guides because this argument is not
23 commensurate in scope with claim 3. Claim 3, which is dependent on claim
24 1, does not require that the material be in physical contact with the part of
25 the device that includes the microwave guides. While claim 1, from which
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013