Appeal No. 1999-2848 Page 5
Application No. 08/833,508
Appellant argues that Dunlap does not disclose spoke
pipes which independently define a plurality of spoke pipe
sets as required by claim 35.
However, Dunlap does disclose a plurality of spoke pipes
which may be considered a plurality of spoke pipe sets as
broadly claimed. We note that claim 35 does not recite a
plurality of exclusive spoke pipe sets. While the
specification may as appellant argues disclose that a spoke
pipe plane is defined by two or more spoke pipes, claim 35
does not recite this feature. We will not read limitations in
the specification into claim 35. Therefore, we will sustain
the rejection as to claims 35 and claims 36 through 38
dependent therefrom because claims 36 through 38 stand or fall
with claim 35 (brief at page 3).
In regard to claim 40, Dunlap discloses a valve 14 which
regulates steam to the drum (Page 1, line 55 to Page 2, line
2). However, valve 14 is not installed between a first spoke
pipe set and a second spoke pipe set and does not prohibit
“communication through the central pipe between the spoke
pipes in said first spoke pipe set and the spoke pipes of said
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007