Appeal 2007-0113
Application 10/353,776
THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 2-7 stand rejected under the doctrine of res judicata on the
basis that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, of claims 1-8 in
Application 09/369,736, the parent to the present application, based on lack
of enablement, was affirmed in a decision mailed November 26, 2002
(hereinafter “Decision”) in Appeal 2002-1433.
Claims 2-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
containing subject mater that was not described in Appellants’ Specification
in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to make and/or use the
invention.
Claims 2-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
being vague and indefinite.
Claims 2, 4, and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Crow (S. C. Crow et al., Orderly structure in jet turbulence,
48 J. Fluid Mech. pt. 3, 547, 547-591 (1971)).
THE ISSUES
The res judicata issue raised by the Examiner turns on whether the
evidentiary record in this appeal differs from the record before the panel in
the parent application (Appeal 2002-1433).
The indefiniteness issue raised by the Examiner has two aspects. The
first aspect involves whether the breadth of claim 2 renders it indefinite.
The second aspect involves whether the scope of the phrase “substantially
uniform” in describing the fluid flow across the nozzle diameter or cross
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013