Appeal No. 1998-1493
Application No. 08/377,861
OPINION
In reaching our decision on the issues raised in this
appeal, we have carefully assessed the claims, the prior art
applied against the claims and the respective views of the
examiner and the appellant as set forth in the Answer and the
Briefs, and have applied to the various issues the guidance
provided by our reviewing court.
The Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, First Paragraph
According to the examiner (Answer, page 3):
It is not clear how swirler 9 (figures 1 or 2) can
create a low-pressure zone in the device. The
structure of the swirler is not clear.
We begin our analysis of this issue by noting that on page 7
of the specification the appellant discloses that the engine
exhaust gases may contact a swirler as they enter the muffler,
to promote mixing and reaction, and that the swirler "may also
be employed to create a low pressure region near the muffler
inlet and thus inhibit backflow of gases." He then goes on to
describe that the swirler utilizes the energy of the entering
gases to induce a rolling motion within the gases. The
swirler is shown diagrammatically in Figure 1, and is depicted
in Figure 2 as comprising a plurality of blades which are
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007