Appeal No. 1999-1990 Page 8
Application No. 08/635,599
the stream of water coming out of the second outlet orifice
(21) . . . spreads out as a spray mist inside the spray cone
leaving the first outlet orifice (5)." In our view, the
appellants' use of the terms "for" and "so that" clearly
convey statements of purpose or intended use. In addition, we
find the examiner's determination that Fabrik's liquid fuel
burner is inherently capable of performing in the manner set
forth in claim 1 to be reasonable.
Thus, it is our determination that claim 1 can be read
such that Fabrik anticipates claim 1. While we recognize that
Fabrik's liquid fuel burner does not disclose spraying water,
we cannot read this attribute of the disclosed spray nozzle
into claim 1 as a limitation. See, e.g., In re Paulsen, 30
F.3d 1475, 1480, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Accordingly, we find ourselves in agreement with the examiner
that claim 1 "reads on" Fabrik as set forth on pages 3-8 of
the answer.
Finally, as to the appellants' argument that Fabrik is
non-analogous art, we agree with the examiner that whether a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007