Appeal No. 1997-1412 Page 15
Application 08/139,888
Giving claim 11, its broadest reasonable interpretation,
the claim does not require a return wall surface 8 forming a
residence space 8a that is not a through conduit as shown in
Figure 14 of the appellants’ specification and argued by the
appellants. To the contrary, claim 11 merely requires a
surface that opposes a gas inlet so as to collide with a flow
of gas.
The examiner has identified a teaching of this limitation
in Babel. Specifically, Figure 8 of the reference shows a
nozzle. The nozzle includes the cone-shaped outer liner 30,
which incorporates a core 31 and forms a narrow channel 32.
Col. 7, ll. 46-49. The liner and core feature an upper side.
Id. at
ll. 51-52. A high-pressure gas flows from an inlet nipple 35
into a ring channel 34 and out the narrow channel. As evident
from Figure 8, the gas will necessarily collide with the upper
side of the liner and core during its flow from the inlet
nipple to the narrow channel. Consequently, Babel teaches the
static pressure conversion surface as specified in claim 11.
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007