Appeal No. 2004-0630
Application No. 09/755,177
185 USPQ 156, 165 (Ct. Cl. Trial Div. 1975), aff'd per curiam
530 F.2d 896, 192 USPQ 672 (U.S. Ct. Cl. 1976) (patentability of
a method claim must rest on method steps recited, not on
structure used, unless structure affects method steps).
Even if the apparatus recitation somehow limits the method
step, we discern no merit in the appellant's implicit contention
that the claim 7 method requires "a separate inlet port for
introducing a solution" (Brief, page 10, emphasis deleted).
Nothing in the appellant's independent claim requires that the
solution inlet port be separate from the oxygen water inlet pipe.
Similarly, the appellant points to nothing and we find nothing in
the subject specification which requires the solution inlet port
to be separate or different from the oxygen water inlet pipe.
See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed.
Cir. 1989). Therefore, even when viewed in a light most generous
to the appellant, claim 7 cannot be interpreted as requiring a
separate inlet port for introducing a solution as the appellant
seems to believe. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348, 213 USPQ
1, 5 (CCPA 1982).
Finally, it is questionable whether the appellant's argument
would have merit even if claim 7 were limited in the fashion
urged by the appellant. This is because the solution inlet port
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007