Appeal 2007-2584
Application 10/248,472
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s § 102(e) rejection of claims
13 and 24 because Yamashita fails to disclose the claim features “controlling
a temperature of the hydrogen gas to fill the vessel to its specification
pressure and maximum volume capacity while maintaining a vessel pressure
at less than or equal to the specification pressure” (claim 13) and “cooling
the hydrogen gas prior to entering the hydrogen gas vessel” (claim 24).
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) REJECTION OVER YAMASHITA IN VIEW OF
STARNER: CLAIMS 17 AND 26 DEPENDENT UPON CLAIM 13
Claims 17 and 26 depend from claim 13. As indicated the § 102(e)
rejection of claim 13 over Yamashita is reversed because all claim features
were not disclosed by Yamashita. Starner’s disclosure does not cure the
deficiencies of Yamashita. Accordingly, we reverse the § 103(a) rejection of
claims 17 and 26 over Yamashita in view of Starner.
35 U.S.C. §§ 103(a) REJECTIONS OVER YAMASHITA, AND
YAMASHITA IN VIEW OF STARNER
INDEPENDENT CLAIMS 1 AND 20
Claims 1 and 20 recite “filling of the hydrogen gas vessel at a rate that
would fill a 5 kg vessel with the hydrogen gas in a period of time of less than
or equal to about 10 minutes” (claim 1) and “filling the hydrogen gas vessel
at a rate that would fill a 5 kg vessel with hydrogen gas in a period of time of
less than or equal to about 5 minutes” (claim 20). We are unsure how to
interpret these claim features. As such, any attempt by the Examiner or the
Board to determine whether these claim features are disclosed by Yamashita
would be improperly based upon speculation as to the meaning of the claim
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013