Appeal 2007-2040
Application 10/632,741
the applied references within the meaning of § 102. Since we concur with
the Examiner's reasoning in support of the rejections, as well as his cogent
deposition of the arguments raised by Appellants, we will adopt the
Examiner's reasoning as our own in sustaining the § 102 rejections of all the
appealed claims.
We consider first the Examiner's § 112, first paragraph rejection. The
Examiner maintains that the original Specification does not enable one of
ordinary skill in the art to practice the claimed invention wherein the first
fluid is an anti-static fluid. However, as understood by the Examiner, the
claimed invention on appeal is an apparatus for treating a gas turbine engine,
and not a process for doing so. Accordingly, regardless of whether the first
or second reservoir contains an anti-static liquid, the pertinent structure of
the claimed apparatus remains the same. Manifestly, one of ordinary skill in
the art would be fully capable of filling either reservoir with an anti-static
liquid. Furthermore, Appellants point out in their Reply Brief that page 4 of
the Specification discloses that in one embodiment the first and second
liquids can be injected simultaneously into the engine.
We also do not agree with the Examiner that the present Specification
is non-enabling with respect to the claimed anti-static liquid. While we
appreciate, as urged by the Examiner, the breadth of materials encompassed
by the claimed anti-static liquid, we have no doubt that one of ordinary skill
on the art would need to resort to only routine experimentation to determine
which of the myriad of available materials qualify as an anti-static liquid to
at least some degree. Indeed, we agree with the Examiner that water, EDTA
and other liquids disclosed in the applied references qualify as anti-static
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013