Appeal No. 1997-1412 Page 16
Application 08/139,888
Claim 12 falls with claim 11. Nevertheless, we note that
the claim specifies in pertinent part “a static pressure
conversion surface which opposes the sub assist gas inlet; and
a bank which is located at inside edge of the static pressure
conversion surface and forms a space where the sub assist gas
stays.”
Giving claim 12, 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 12 merely requires the
aforementioned static pressure conversion surface and a wall
at the inside edge of the surface.
The examiner has identified a teaching of this limitation
in Babel. As aforementioned, the reference teaches the static
pressure conversion surface. Furthermore, Figure 8 of Babel
shows that an intermediate piece 33 forms the walls of the
ring channel and that these walls are at the inside edges of
the upper side of the liner and of the core. Consequently,
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007