Appeal 2007-2553
Application 10/367,347
required by the claim. We determine that this term is not defined by
Appellants (Specification 5), and thus we give the broadest reasonable
meaning to this term in its general usage as it would be understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d
1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We determine that the broadest reasonable
interpretation of this term in its general usage would be any device that
separates two streams based in some part on their different masses.
However, the gas separation devices taught by Muradov all use the different
masses of the gas streams, to some extent, to separate the gases even though
pressure or temperature may also be a factor (see col. 5, ll. 19-22, and
factual finding (4) listed above).
Second, we agree with the Examiner that the cyclone 2 disclosed by
Muradov is capable of separating gaseous streams.2 See In re Schreiber,
supra. Contrary to Appellants’ argument that the cyclone is used for
separating carbon particles from a gaseous stream (Br. 4-5), Muradov
specifically teaches that the carbon particulates are removed from the bottom
of reactor 1 and thus do not appear to enter the cyclone 2 (see factual
findings (3) and (5) listed above).3 Furthermore, Muradov teaches that the
gas entering the anode of the fuel cell unit should be “pure hydrogen” (i.e.,
99 v.%), and the only apparatus between the reactor 1 and the fuel cell unit 7
is the cyclone 2 and heat exchanger (see Figure 2 and factual findings (6)
and (7) listed above). Thus we determine that the Examiner has established
2 We note that Appellants have not disputed that the cyclone 2 taught by
Muradov is a “mass separation device” within the scope of this term in claim
1 on appeal.
3 We note that Muradov does show a stream exiting the bottom of cyclone 2
into the heater 6 but does not identify this stream (see Figures 1 and 2).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013