Appeal 2007-2201
Application 10/613,735
by Appellant’s arguments. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the rejection of the
claims on appeal under § 112, first paragraph, essentially for the reasons
stated in the Answer and those reasons set forth below.
We also determine that the Examiner has established a prima facie
case of anticipation in view of Wedler, which prima facie case has not been
adequately rebutted by Appellant’s arguments. Accordingly, we AFFIRM
the rejection of claims 26-30 and 33 under § 102(b) over Wedler essentially
for the reasons stated in the Answer, as well as those reasons set forth below.
Therefore, we AFFIRM the decision of the Examiner.
OPINION
A. The Rejection under § 112, ¶ 1
The Examiner finds that the amended subject matter set forth in the
last paragraph of claim 26 on appeal is “new matter,” i.e., the language that
“the evaporator operates as a heat plate” has no basis or support in the
original disclosure (Answer 4; Br. 7). Both Appellant (Br. 7) and the
Examiner (Answer 4) point to the same portion of the Specification as most
relevant:
The evaporator apparatus 112 may be any suitable apparatus for
evaporating the non-aqueous solvent. For example, the
evaporator apparatus 112 may be a heat exchanger. Further, the
heat exchanger may be a steam-based heat exchanger, where
steam is passed through the heat exchanger, providing a
sufficient amount of heat to evaporate the non-aqueous solvent.
After having come in contact with the evaporator apparatus
112, the substrate 104 then leaves the vacuum chamber 110 and
subsequently leaves the machine 100 altogether, with the
chemical solution remaining and the non-aqueous solvent
removed. Specification 11:15-22.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013