What does this mean?
International Search Report- International application No. PCT/AU2009/001170 : Date of completion 13 November 2009
Date of mailing 18 Nov. 2009
Citation of document,with indication,where appropriate,of the relevant passages:
Category- *X- relevant to claim numbers 1,6,7,10
Category- **Y- relevant to claim numbers 2,3,5
* "X"- "document of particular relevance; the claimed invention cannot be considered novel or cannot be considered to involve an inventive step when the document is taken alone."
** "Y"- "document of particular relevance; the claimed invention cannot be considered to involve an inventive step when the document is combined with one or more other such documents, such combination being obvious to a person skilled in the art."
Documents cited: US 2003/0221361 A1 (Russell ET AL) 4 December,2003: US 6504068 B1 (Matsubara ET AL.) 7 Jan. 2003: US 4396786 A (Bond ET AL.) 2 August, 1983.
and this: "PCT Rule 13.2, first sentence, states that unity of invention is only fulfilled when there is a technical relationship among claimed inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. PCT Rule 13.2, second sentence, defines a special technical feature which makes a contribution over the prior art." "The only features common to all of the claims are providing a feedstock stream comprising suitable feedstock material under pressure to a mixing vessel at a predetermined feed rate and injecting a stream of a reactant gas capable of dissolving into the feedstock for mixing." "However these common features are not novel in light of: D1 US 2003/0221361 A! (Russell ET AL.) 4 December 2003: D2 US 6504068 B1 (Matsubara ET AL.) 7 January 2003: D3 US 4396786 A (Bond ET AL.) 2 August 1983." "THis means that the common features can not constitute a special feature within the meaning of PCT Rule 13.2, second sentence, since it makes no contribution over the prior art." "Because the common features do not satisfy the requirement for being a special technical feature, it follows that they cannot provide the necessary technical relationship between the identidied inventions. Therefore, the claims do not satisfy the requirement of unity of invention a posteriori." TIA
