Appeal No. 1999-1964 Page 6
Application No. 08/349,665
for removing organic deposits obstructing a vessel which comprises, with reference to
Figure 4, a first passage 11 for supplying fluid to a nozzle 22 from which emanates a
fluid jet that “strikes deposit B and destroys it, dismantles it, or disintegrates it,” after
which the liquid is evacuated together with the deposit matter by a pump (column 2,
lines 49-57). The fluid is supplied at supersonic speed under a pressure of 6 x 107 Pa
(column 1, lines 23-24, which is much greater than the 1000 psi required by claim 40.
The only argument advanced by the appellants in opposition to the examiner’s
conclusion is that the Neracher system utilizes two telescoping tubular members which
can move independently of one another, whereas “[a]pplicants’ device employs a
singular tubular member with a first and second passage” (Brief, page 7; Reply Brief,
page 5). We agree with the examiner, however, that the claim reads on the assembled
Neracher apparatus, and that the claimed method is performed by Neracher.
We therefore will sustain the rejection of claims 39 and 40, as well as this
rejection of dependent claims 41-46, 49 and 50, which depend from both independent
claims, and with regard to which the separate patentability was not argued.
As was the case with the Kensey rejection, the subject matter recited in
dependent claim 48 is not disclosed or taught by Neracher, and we therefore will not
sustain the rejection of claim 48 as being anticipated by Neracher.
CONCLUSION
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007