Appeal No. 96-2058
Application No. 08/147,090
supported by the overall patent disclosure but most
particularly by lines 57 through 60 in column 13 wherein
Gorelick teaches that the vapors can be removed at the top of
the well (i.e., vented) "through forced air ventilation"
(emphasis added). Also see previously noted lines 31 and 32
in column 5 wherein the ventilator function is described as
"vapor extraction" (emphasis added) as well as patent claim 7
which recites "means connected across said vapor extraction
line for drawing VOC vapor from the top of the well"
In light of the foregoing, it is our determination that
the venting feature of patentees' method (e.g., see method
claim 21), when interpreted as it must be in light of
patentees' specification, embraces a ventilator in the form of
"[a] mechanical apparatus for producing a current of air, as a
blowing or exhaust fan". Further, we are convinced that such
a mechanical apparatus would necessarily and inherently create
at least a partial vacuum upstream thereof, namely, at the
surface area of the water being treated as required by the
claims on appeal.
In summary, for the reasons set forth in the answer and
above, the here claimed method fails to distinguish over the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007