Appeal No. 2005-2736 Παγε 4
Application No. 09/966,288
In addition, the examiner is of the view that the language of claims 39 and 40
does not preclude avoiding means and avoiding portions that permit the mixing or
combining of the drops further downstream within the heat exchanger or anywhere
beyond the fuel supply plate because the appellants' specification defines the language
related to the mixing of the drops to be limited to mixing along the surface of the fuel
supply plate. (Answer at page 4).
We agree with the appellants that said avoiding means as recited in claims
39 and 40 prevent mixing of fuel drops beyond the fuel distribution plate. Appellants’
specification describes the avoiding means or avoiding portions as chamfers 63 formed
in the outlet portions of the holes 61. As disclosed in the specification, these chamfers
63 prevent the drops of liquid fuel flowing through adjacent holes from joining each
other thereby facilitating a more uniform distribution of fuel to the whole area of the heat
exchanger (specification at pages13 to 14. As the specification discloses that the non
joining of the drops facilitates the more uniform distribution of the fuel to say the fuel
chamber, it is clear that the specification does not limit the non joining feature of the
invention to the distribution plate.
In regard to the examiner's inherency argument, we note that the examiner has
relied on principles of inherency. We note that a prior art reference need not expressly
disclose each claimed element in order to anticipate the claimed invention. See Tyler
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007