Appeal No. 98-1640
Application 08/535,850
inch to about one and one-quarter inches as in claim 1). We
note that claim 11 simply sets forth a distance adapted to
substantially uniformly atomize the mixture of gas and liquid.
As explained by appellants (main brief, page 14), if the
distance is too short or too long this circumstance would be
“detrimental to atomization”. It is readily apparent to this
panel of the board that one having ordinary skill in the art
would have, in configuring the nozzle of Nielsen for
“[o]ptimal atomization”, determined from routine
experimentation, working distances that would have been
expected to fall within the distance range of claim 1. Nothing
before us convinces us otherwise.
As to the argument addressed to the passageways being
angled with respect to the longitudinal axis of the conduits
(main brief, pages 17 and 18), Exhibit A appended to
appellants’ main brief reveals to us the alternative option in
the art (Figure 4.41), obviously known and available to those
having ordinary skill, of angling passages relative to a
longitudinal axis of nozzle passages when such would be
desirable for a particular nozzle usage.
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007