Appeal No. 2000-1359 Page 6
Application No. 08/351,613
new term to the phenomenon of creating a low pressure area by means of the flow of a
jet of high pressure fluid through a surrounding fluid and into a confined passage. This
being the case, we are not persuaded by the appellants’ arguments, and we will sustain
the Section 102 rejection of claim 79. In arriving at this conclusion, we wish to point out
that the appellants’ argument that Plechinger fails to meet the terms of the claim
because it incorporates a diffuser in the outlet passage is of no consequence, if for no
other reason than the claim is presented in a “comprising” format, which opens the
claim to inclusion of elements or steps other than those recited therein. In re Hunter,
288 F.2d 930, 932, 129 USPQ 225, 226 (CCPA 1961).
Since the appellants have elected to group the dependent claims with the
independent claims from which they depend, the rejection of claims 85/79, 86/79,
90/79, 91/79, 102/79, 105/79 and 106/79 also is sustained.
Claim 80 sets forth this portion of the appellants’ invention in terms of the fluid
jets producing “a low pressure region which tends to bring the tissue towards the fluid
jet(s).” Again, the examiner rejects this as being anticipated by Plechinger. The
appellants argue that their invention creates a “localized vacuum adjacent to the jet,”
which they contend Plechinger can achieve only by adding a diffuser, not required by
their invention. However, as was the case above, we are not persuaded that there is
any difference between the Plechinger structure and in the action caused thereby and
that recited by the appellants in claim 80. In this regard, we again point out that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007