Appeal No. 96-1883
Application 08/078,380
OPINION
The Rejections Under Section 112
The examiner asserts that certain of the subject matter
recited in the claims fails to find support in the specification,
and therefore the claims run afoul of the first paragraph of
Section 112. It is the examiner's position that
[t]he specification fails to adequately teach in what
respect the path [of the fluid] is "angular" and "non-
linear", and how the path is both "angular" and "non-
linear" (Answer, page 5, emphasis in the original).
We find ourselves in agreement with the appellants that this is
not a valid criticism of the specification. With reference to
Figure 1A and the explanation thereof found in the appellants'
specification, for example, it is our view that one of ordinary
skill in the art would readily have understood the meaning of
these terms. That is, the path of the fluid from plenum chamber
26 into the space between working surface 14 and bottom surface
of the article being conveyed is "angular," in that its overall
direction is upward and downstream. It also is "non-linear" in
that this overall direction is achieved by traveling in several
paths, which are "stepped" with respect to one another. These
are illustrated in Figure 1A by the sinuous arrows from plenum 26
through opening 40 into orifice 18, and between orifice 18
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007