Appeal No. 2001-0299 3
Application No. 08/993,861
our characterization of the guide tube 17, wall 36 and shell 4 as a tubular body of the
swirl cup of claim 1.
As for appellants' suggestion that our earlier decision failed to point out the
structure in Koch corresponding to the "inlet at one end" and the "outlet at an opposite
axial end" recited in claim 1, we disagree. From our perspective, it is clear from our
discussion in the paragraph bridging pages 10 and 11 of our earlier decision that we
consider the "inlet1 at one end" to be that portion of the tubular body, formed by the
guide tube 17, conical wall 36 and shell 4, upstream of the conical wall 36 (i.e., the
guide tube 17). While the end of the guide tube 17 is not illustrated in Figure 2, it
certainly has one, as we expressed on page 12 of our earlier decision). Appellants
cannot seriously contend that the tube 17 is endless. Moreover, appellants' assertion
that the guide tube 17 does not receive the fuel injection nozzle 27 is not well founded.
While the nozzle 27 is not located at the inlet end of guide tube 17, claim 1 contains no
such requirement. All that claim 1 requires is that the inlet be capable of receiving a
nozzle. In that Koch's nozzle 27 and the fuel supply tube 10 to which it is connected
pass through the inlet end of the guide tube 17 and are received in the guide tube 17,
the guide tube 17, and even, in fact, the inlet end of the guide tube 17, is certainly
capable of receiving and does receive the nozzle. With respect to the "outlet at an
1 In this regard, we note that an "inlet" is not itself an end, but rather a "passage" (Webster's New
World Dictionary, Third College Edition (Simon & Schuster, Inc. 1988)). As such, the entire guide tube,
not just its upstream or inlet end, is considered to be the "inlet" as recited in claim 1.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007