Appeal No. 1999-2127
Application No. 08/754,371
pass is through a plurality of tubes (30), the second pass is
through a single larger diameter tube (40), and not through a
plurality of larger diameter tubes. As a matter of fact, this
is the essence of the appellant’s invention, as clearly is
explained on pages 1 and 2 of the specification. We therefore
interpret the phrase of claim 1 that reads “a second pass
defined by a single, large diameter pipe extending from said
intermediate water box through said chamber to said outlet
water box” literally, that is, that it requires that there be2
only one single pipe. Having so interpreted the disputed
language, it is clear that Vezie fails to disclose or teach
this feature, in that its second pass is defined by eight
larger diameter pipes, rather than one.
Vezie therefore does not anticipate the subject matter
recited in claim 1, and we will not sustain this rejection of
claim 1 or, it follows, of claim 2, which depends therefrom.
The Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
2Emphasis added.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007