Appeal No. 1998-0387
Application 08/566,192
reply brief or otherwise.
We also agree with the examiner that it would have been
obvious in view of Marchand to utilize an “array” of tubular
heat exchangers, as claimed, instead of Berman’s single
tubular heat exchanger.
In the rejection, the examiner relied upon Hilger for a
teaching that it would have been obvious to vertically arrange
the components of the Berman system, i.e., the spray chamber
12, heat exchanger 14, and demister 20. As discussed above,
the
Hilger patent is nonanalogous art and will not be considered;
nevertheless, we conclude that claims 1 and 2 are unpatentable
over Berman in view of Marchand.
It is fundamental that, during examination proceedings,
claims are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation, and limitations are not to be read into the
claims from the specification. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d
1181, 1184, 26 USPQ2d 1057, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Looking at
the language of claim 1 with this principle in mind, we note
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007