Appeal No. 2005-1115
Application 09/269,369
dioxide gas into a liquid” while the fourth limitation defining
the characteristics of the “nozzles” does so in the context that
the nozzles must be capable of maintaining the specified system
back pressure range with respect to maintaining “dissolved carbon
dioxide gas in the solution within the diffuser” (emphasis
supplied).
The plain language of appealed independent claim 7
specifies “[a] diffuser” utilizing the same preambular language
as claim 1 and comprising at least “a pair of laterally displaced
nozzles” the characteristics of which are defined by essentially
the same four limitations used to define the “nozzles” as in
claim 1, with the exception that the fourth limitation in claim 7
does not specify a back pressure psi range, only that the “system
back pressure” caused by the nozzles must be sufficient to
“maintain dissolved gas in said solution within the diffuser”
(emphasis supplied). Thus, as to the latter limitation, claim 7
encompasses a diffuser in which the nozzles provide sufficient
back pressure to maintain any amount of dissolved gas, however
small, in solution.
The dependent claims 3 and 11 specify that the
“diffuser” further comprises at least a hollow, elongated body to
which the nozzles are “coupled to [the] second end in a
substantially perpendicular manner.” The dependent claims 4 and
12 specify that the nozzles are “at least partially defined by an
elbow portion and a concentric reducer,” and dependent claims 5
and 13 specify that “a pair of elbow portions substantially
[define] a semicircle portion of each said nozzle.”
In my view, the threshold issue in this appeal is
whether the claim term “[a] diffuser” encompasses an apparatus
such as “diffuser 110” per se illustrated in specification FIG.
7, which illustrates a diffuser that has nozzles falling within
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007