Appeal 2007-3670
Application 10/404,701
CLAIM 3
Claim 3 is rejected under § 102(b) over Hershkowitz. Appellant
argues that Hershkowitz does not disclose “the second inlet comprising a
plate having a plurality of apertures through which said tubes extend” as
required by claim 3 (Br. 7).
We have considered Appellant’s argument and we cannot sustain the
Examiner’s § 102(b) rejection of claim 3.
We construe claim 3 as requiring the second inlet comprise a plate
with apertures, wherein the tubes extend through the apertures in the plate.
Our construction of claim 3 is supported by Appellant’s Specification that
indicates that the tubes 24 extend through apertures 52 formed in the second
inlet’s distribution plate 50 (Specification 7, ll. 1-5).
The Examiner finds that Hershkowitz’s Figure 2 illustrates a plurality
of metal plates 21 having segregated oxygen passages 22 (i.e., second inlets)
and methane passages 23 (i.e., tubes) (Answer 5). However, it is not evident
how Hershkowitz’s passages 23 (i.e., tubes) extend through the apertures
used to form the passages 22 (i.e., second inlet) in the metal plates 21.
Moreover, the Examiner has not explained how claim 3 is to be construed to
include Hershkowitz’s injector means having passages 22 and 23 in metal
plates 21.
Because we find that Hershkowitz fails to disclose the argued feature
of claim 3, we reverse the Examiner’s § 102(b) rejection of argued claim 3
over Hershkowitz. Furthermore, because of its dependency on claim 3, we
reverse the § 102(b) rejection of claim 4 over Hershkowitz.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013