Appeal 2007-2490
Application 09/846,255
Appellants, Verhaverbeke -- unlike Mehta -- contemplates including water
and carboxylic acid (Br. 5-7; Reply Br. 3-4).
The Examiner responds that Verhaverbeke does not teach away from
the dynamic mode, but rather acknowledges that both the static and dynamic
modes have certain drawbacks, but nonetheless are interchangeable
techniques. The Examiner notes that Verhaverbeke even claims both such
techniques in claims 11 and 12 of the patent respectively (Answer 7).
We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1. As
an initial matter, we note that Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s
findings that Mehta discloses all limitations of independent claim 1 except
for the “continuously” limitation noted above. We therefore adopt these
undisputed factual findings regarding the disclosure to Mehta.
However, in our view, the scope and breadth of the term
“continuously” as claimed does not preclude the continuous flow of gas that
occurs during the periods when gas is flowed -- even if such gas is
ultimately flowed in an intermittent or pulsed fashion as in Mehta. That is,
even in a static mode, gas flows continuously during the time period that gas
is flowing (i.e., during the pulse). According to Mehta, these periods can
last 8 seconds (Mehta, col. 4, ll. 39-40), but can vary widely depending on a
number of factors (Mehta, col. 3, ll. 52-57) -- a variance which suggests that
the time periods could be even longer.
In short, “continuously” is a relative term that can be reasonably
interpreted with respect to the specific interval in which gas is flowed. For
this reason alone, and since Mehta discloses all other recited limitations of
independent claim 1, Appellants have not persuasively rebutted the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013