Ex parte BIELAWSKI et al. - Page 5

          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,                

          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                


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007