Appeal No. 2001-0299 4
Application No. 08/993,861
opposite axial end," the outlet is defined by the shell 4, including its neck shaped
upstream portion which abuts the swirl plates 14, as well as its outlet end.
Appellants' contention (request, page 5) that claim 1 positively recites a fuel
nozzle is simply in error. The language "for receiving a fuel injection nozzle" requires
nothing more than that the inlet be capable of receiving a fuel nozzle and is not a
positive recitation of a fuel nozzle actually received in the inlet.2 Appellants' reliance on
In re Stencel, 828 F.2d 751, 754-55, 4 USPQ2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1987) and Kropa
v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 155-59, 88 USPQ 478, 483-87 (CCPA 1951) as support for the
position that the language "for receiving a fuel injection nozzle" in claim 1 positively
recites a fuel injection nozzle is misplaced. First, the language at issue here is not
preambular language as was the language at issue in Stencel and Kropa. Second, and
more importantly, the body of appellants' claim 1 is devoid of any language which
imparts any structural limitation on the inlet of the swirl cup beyond its capability of
receiving a fuel injection nozzle therein. In any event, the issue of whether a fuel
injection nozzle is positively recited in claim 1 is moot in light of the disclosure of nozzle
27 by Koch, as discussed above.
Appellants' argument (request, page 8) that the swirl device 18 of Koch is
attached at the downstream end of the guide tube, not its upstream end, does not
appear to have any relevance to claim 1, which does not require attachment of the row
2 Language such as "a fuel injection nozzle received in said inlet" would constitute positive
recitation of a fuel nozzle.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007