Appeal No. 95-3119 Page 9
Application No. 08/089,810
With this as background, we analyze the specific rejections
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, made by the examiner of
the claims on appeal. The examiner determined (answer, p. 5)
that (1) "gill-like" in claim 12 is vague; (2) claims 19-21 seem
to define the intended use of the apparatus; and (3) "the
combustion chamber" in claim 7 lacks antecedent basis.4
We agree with the appellant's argument (brief, p. 6) that
the term "gill-like" in claim 12 is definite. It is our opinion
that an artisan upon reading the appellant's original disclosure
(e.g., page 7, 1¶, Figures 1 and 2, etc.) would have considered
the term "gill-like" to mean that the passages are narrow slots
closely spaced one on top of the other. Since the meaning of the
term "gill-like" would have been understood, the term "gill-like"
is definite.
We agree with the appellant's argument (brief, p. 7) that
claims 19 through 21 are definite. In that regard, we agree with
the appellant that the recitations of claims 19 through 21 define
positive limitations of the claims, not the intended use of the
4We are at a lose to understand why the examiner include
claims 1 through 7, 9 through 11, 18, 22 through 24 and 27 in
this rejection.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007