Appeal No. 1996-3162
Application 08/227,897
repeated recirculation flow? This language
is also misdescriptive since even the gas
caused to recirculate will eventually be
presumably advanced outward. The
specification does not teach how to assure
obtaining the claimed flow pattern where
one portion is in circulation, while
another portion [is] removed.
In determining, first, whether the language in
question has a clear meaning, it is fundamental that it cannot
be read apart from and independent of the supporting
disclosure on which it is based, but rather must be read in
light of that disclosure. In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 993, 169
USPQ 95, 98 (CCPA 1971). The definiteness of the language
must be analyzed in light of the
teachings of the prior art and of the particular application
disclosure as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill
in the art. In re Merat, 519 F.2d 1390, 1394, 186 USPQ 471,
474 (CCPA 1975).
In the present case, appellants disclose that in the
operation of the primary oxidation chamber 400, as shown in
Fig. 5 (specification, page 10, lines 10 to 16):
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007