Appeal No. 95-0140
Application 08/002,528
on pages 6-10 of the brief and pages 3 and 4 of the answer.
OPINION
As a preliminary matter, we base our understanding of the
appealed subject matter upon the following interpretation of the
terminology appearing in the claims. In subparagraph (c) of
independent claim 17 we interpret “a fluidizing means for
dispersing the liquid and any particles in said vessel”3 to be
-- a fluidizing means for dispersing the liquid and some
particles in said vessel --. This interpretation is consistent
with the appellants’ specification which states that the two-
material nozzles (which are depicted in Figs. 3 and 9 as being
located at the bottom of the vessel 1) “contribute” to a thorough
mixing of the fluidized bed (page 23) and that “some,” as
distinguished from all or “any,” of the droplets generated by the
3 The appellants have failed to comply with the provisions
of 37 CFR § 1.75(d)(1) which requires that the terms and phrases
used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in
the description. Here, the appellants in the specification have
described the “fluidizing means” as the gas which passes through
the perforated outflow bottom 2 of the vessel 1 (see, e.g., page
20, lines 30-36) and the two-material nozzle 5 as an atomizing
means (see, e.g., pages 23 and 24). On the other hand, the
claims on appeal inconsistently set forth the two-material nozzle
as the “fluidizing means” (see claims 20 and 24), after having
previously set forth the perforated outflow bottom as a fluidized
bed (see claims 17 and 24).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007