Appeal No. 96-3512
Application 08/235,623
being a relatively thin plate-like member of generally square
shape, we do not believe that it can seriously be contended that
the artisan would not understand that the upper and lower faces
(i.e., the faces of by far the greatest surface area) of the
plate-like member were the “major” faces. Note also the
description in lines 27 and 28 on page 11 to the effect that
“member 30 is shaped in a plate configuration having two major
surfaces as shown in FIG. 1.”
As to the examiner’s criticism of the recitation “an energy”
we do not believe that one of ordinary skill in this art would
not understand that this reference referred to the energy created
by the recited “energy source.” As to the examiner’s criticism
of the recitation “substantially near” in claim 20, page 13 of
the appellants’ specification states that:
To obtain optimum destruction of chemical compound
70, exit end 44 is positioned as close as possible to
the member 30. This position is not necessarily
preferred because it is desirable to have a non-
restrictive flow of chemical compound where chemical
compound 70 does not backflow into processing tool 82.
A minimum distance 73 between exit end 44 of conduit 40
and the major surface of member 30 towards which
chemical 70 is introduced is preferably the distance
where the flow rate of chemical compound is not
altered . . . . [Lines 3-12.]
Consistent with the appellants’ specification, one of ordinary
skill in the art would understand that “substantially near” the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007