Appeal No. 95-3424
Application 08/143,598
apparatus. Rather, the "means" at issue is recited only in terms of an intended use of the claimed
apparatus, and to define the volume of its containment baffle element.
Furthermore, the examiner's concern with regard to the position of the "flood means" relative to
the baffle is unjustified. In our view, the claims read on positioning flood means either inside or outside
of the baffle, or both inside and outside. For instance, according to the specification (page 9), we note
that a flood line 156a may be connected to an internal fog nozzle 157, or a flood line 156b may be
connected to an external spray head 158. Claims are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification. In re Sneed,
710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The fact that the claims are broad in
scope, does not make them indefinite.
As for the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we have carefully considered the entire record in
light of appellants' position as well as that of the examiner. In doing so, we conclude that the examiner
has established a prima facie case of obviousness, and appellants' have failed to present any persuasive
countervailing argument or evidence by way of rebuttal.
As pointed out by the examiner, Schatz discloses a containment apparatus for mitigation of any
HF leaks in an alkylation system. The Schatz disclosure embraces, inter alia, a containment baffle (an
annular impact plate 30), HF detecting means (HF detectors 96, 97), flood means (water sprays 93),
means responsive to the detecting means to activate the flood means (computer 91), and means for
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007