Appeal No. 2001-0299 2
Application No. 08/993,861
The rejection based on Koch
Appellants’ request (page 3) takes issue with this panel reading the tubular body
of the swirl cup of claim 1 on structure including the shell 4 of Koch on the basis that the
shell 4 is identified by Koch as a primary combustion chamber, not a swirl cup. At the
outset, we note that, while anticipation requires the disclosure of each and every
limitation of the claim at issue in a single prior art reference, it does not require such
disclosure in haec verba. In re Bode, 550 F.2d 656, 660, 193 USPQ 12, 16 (CCPA
1977). Thus, the fact that Koch does not refer to the guide tube 17, conical wall 36 and
shell 4 as a "swirl cup" does not preclude a finding of anticipation of the subject matter
of claim 1 based on Koch. Koch's shells 4 do form structures which Koch refers to as
primary combustion chambers 1 because the fuel and air mixtures therein are ignited by
flames in the secondary combustion chamber 2 produced by starting burner 5. None of
the shells 4 is provided with a dedicated pilot burner P, as is the starting burner 5 of
Koch. We have reviewed appellants' discussion of swirl cups in the background section
of appellants' specification but we find therein no express definition of "swirl cup" which
precludes traveling of flames thereinto from a combustion chamber (e.g., the secondary
chamber 2 of Koch or neighboring shells 4). In fact, the omission of the venturi from
appellants' inner swirl cups would appear to permit the flame front from the combustion
chamber 18d to travel into the swirl cups (see specification, page 2, lines 29-31). For
the foregoing reasons, appellants' argument that Koch refers to the shell 4 as forming a
primary combustion chamber 1 does not persuade us that we committed any error in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007