Appeal No. 2001-0299 12
Application No. 08/993,861
limitations, on page 6 of the answer10, was far more detailed than appellants’ continued
vague reference to 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph.
For the foregoing reasons, appellants’ request for rehearing fails to persuade us
of any error in our earlier decision to affirm the rejection of claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14
and 15 as anticipated by Koch. Thus, we make no modification to that portion of our
earlier decision.
The rejection based on Angel
Turning next to the rejection of claims 1 and 12 as being anticipated by Angel,
appellants reiterate their position that the Board has “failed to give due weight to the
fuel injection nozzle expressly recited in claim 1" (request, page 14). We remain
unpersuaded of any error on our part in this regard for the reasons stated supra. As set
forth on page 15 of our decision, “claim 1 does not even positively recite a fuel nozzle,
much less require any particular location of other recited elements relative thereto.”
Appellants’ argument that “the portion of the centerbody 42 illustrated in Angel
upstream of the swirlers 26, 28 is clearly not a ‘fuel injection nozzle’ as that term is used
in Appellants’ claims; or as disclosed in Appellants’ specification; or as used in Angel
itself” (request, page 14) is a new argument which was not made in the brief and is thus
10 It cannot reasonably be argued that it is not clear from the examiner’s statements on page 6 of
the answer that the examiner considers the claimed “means for injecting fuel ...” to be met by the nozzle
27 of Koch, the claimed “means for firstly swirling ...” to be met by the “first swirl vanes 18," the claimed
“means for secondly swirling ...” to be met by the “second swirl vanes 14" and the “means for discharging
a mixture ... into the combustor” to be met by the outlet portion of the “tubular body 1, 4.” It is worthy of
note that appellants have still not set forth any arguments as to why these structures of Koch are not the
same as or equivalent to the structure disclosed in appellants’ specification which corresponds to these
means limitations.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007