Appeal No. 98-0102
Application 08/030,734
added):
Since the amount of heat 13, is less than it would
be if the Heat Absorber 1 was replaced by a Heat
Absorber of the type which is immersed in the
contents of the enclosed space, and since the heat
transfer area in contact with the contents of the
enclosed space, is almost equal to the entire inside
area of the lining of the enveloped part of the
enclosure, and therefore usually greater than that
of a Heat Absorber of said "immersed" type, the
temperature differential (T -T ) is much less thanO O
c a
it would be if a Heat Absorber of said "immersed"
type was used. Consequently the temperature
difference (T -T ) is less than it would be if aO 0
s a
Heat Absorber of said "immersed" type was used.
Consequently the energy input required at 9 to
maintain said temperature difference (T -T ) is lessO 0
s a
than it would be if a Heat Absorber of said
"immersed" type was used.
Similar statements are found on pages 14 and 17.
We do not consider that, reading the claimed step of
“effecting the reduced difference” in light of the disclosure,
one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine,
with sufficient precision, what the bounds of the claimed
subject matter are. See In re Merat, 519 F.2d 1390, 1396, 186
USPQ 471, 476 (CCPA 1975). From the specification, it appears
that the temperature difference is “reduced” relative to a
system using an “immersed” heat absorber. But against what
such system is the reduction to be compared? Is it a system
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007