Appeal No. 1997-1412 Page 13
Application 08/139,888
Regarding claims 11 and 12, the appellants make the
following argument.
Claims 11 and 12 are drafted using the "means plus
function" format expressly permitted by 35 U.S.C.
§112, paragraph 6. As such, the "static pressure
conversion means" must be regarded as the structure
disclosed in the specification and equivalents. The
structure disclosed in the specification is pressure
conversion surface 7 and return wall surface 8,
which forms a residence space 8a. As can clearly be
seen in Figure 14, the return wall surface 8 forms a
residence space 8a which is not a through conduit.
In other words, space 8a is a closed space having no
fluid communication with another space except at the
same place gas enters it. This is manifestly
different in form and function from the ring channel
34, which is merely a distribution channel for gas
inlet through the nipple 35. (Appeal Br. at 8.)
The examiner replies, “claim 11 should be construed as
requiring only a pressure conversion surface, which Babel
discloses. Claim 12 explicitly recites the conversion
surface, and further requires a bank (wall) at in inside edge
of the conversion surface, which is shown by Babel in the form
of the inside wall of the channel.” (Examiner’s Answer at
10.) We agree with the examiner.
The appellants err by attempting to read limitations from
the specification into the claims. “In the patentability
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007