Ex Parte Gharib et al - Page 11

              Appeal 2007-0113                                                                     
              Application 10/353,776                                                               
              practiced the claimed invention without undue experimentation.  Id.  See             
              also In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220, 169 USPQ 367 (CCPA 1971).                        
                    Appellants’ claims recite a method of producing thrust from fluid jet          
              pulses comprising the steps of providing a jet nozzle and controlling a              
              formation number F and a pulsing frequency f to optimize the thrust.  In             
              order to control the formation number F and pulsing frequency f to optimize          
              the thrust, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have to know or be able      
              to determine the optimum values for F and f.  Appellants’ Specification              
              discloses that the optimum formation number F is “around 4; more                     
              specifically 4 ± 0.5” in cases where the flow at the nozzle exit is                  
              “substantially uniform” and decreases as the flow becomes less uniform, and          
              can be as low as 1.0, but does not specify how the optimum formation                 
              number varies with degree of uniformity (Fact 4).  Moreover, Appellants’             
              Specification discloses two ranges for the optimum non-dimensional pulsing           
              frequency StL, but does not disclose under what conditions either of those           
              two ranges applies.  Id.  Further, while the Bremhorst and Hollis article may        
              establish that techniques were known in the art at the time of Appellants’           
              invention for measuring flow velocities across the jet nozzle, the article does      
              not provide any guidance as to how velocity affects the optimum formation            
              number or pulsing frequency (Fact 3).  Accordingly, the question before us           
              is whether a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellants’          
              invention could have determined the optimum formation number F and                   
              pulsing frequency from Appellants’ Specification without undue                       
              experimentation.                                                                     
                    Factors to be considered in determining whether a disclosure would             
              require undue experimentation include (1) the quantity of experimentation            

                                                11                                                 

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013