Appeal No. 2000-1337
Application No. 08/955,002
chamber and the exterior of the head;
a burner cap over said burner head enclosing
said chamber and covering said ports;
a burner base for supporting the burner in a
cooktop opening;
a primary air flow passage in communication with
said chamber;
a plurality of bypass ports between said burner
head and at least one of said burner cap and said
burner base, adjacent to said burner ports and
covered by said cap, and
a secondary air flow passage independent of said
primary air flow passage in communication with said
plurality of bypass ports.
Claims 1 through 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter the appellant regards as
the invention. According to the examiner, these claims are
indefinite because:
[t]he term “ports” as used for example in line 3 of
claim 1 and in the specification is misdescriptive.
The portions 32 and 38 of the burner are considered
either recesses, grooves or passageways. In order
to form “ports”, other mating parts such as cap 40
must
mate with recesses 32. A port is considered to be a
hole as set forth in Webster’s Third New
International Dictionary.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007