Appeal 2007-2201
Application 10/613,735
The Examiner has relied on the following prior art references as
evidence of unpatentability:
Wedler US Re. 27,995 Apr. 30, 1974
Ellison US 4,136,636 Jan. 30, 1979
Kinsley, Jr. US 4,421,794 Dec. 30, 1983
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Claims 26-48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
failing to comply with the written description requirement (Answer 3).
Claims 26-30 and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Wedler (Answer 4).
Claim 31 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Wedler in view of Ellison (Answer 7).
Claims 32 and 34-42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Wedler in view of Kinsley, Jr. (Answer 7).
Claims 43-48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Wedler in view of Kinsley, Jr., and Ellison (Answer 10).
Appellant notes that the Amendment of Jun. 13, 2005, amended claim
26 to require “passing the substrate with remaining chemical mixture by and
against an evaporator apparatus, such that the evaporator apparatus operates
as a heat plate to evaporate the non-aqueous solvent into a solvent vapor”
(Br. 7). Appellant contends that the Specification, at page 11, ll. 10-22, Fig.
1, and the dictionary definition of “heat exchanger” would have allowed one
of ordinary skill in the art to understand that the evaporator apparatus
operates as a heated surface (i.e., a heat plate) when in contact with the
substrate (Br. 7-8).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013