Appeal No. 1999-2225
Application No. 08/815,441
section, said induction chamber having an upper opening
and a lower opening in connection with one another so
as to create a channel throughout said induction
chamber, a series of apertures in said upper section,
an impeller assembly fixed for rotation at a point
above said induction chamber and having blades of size
and shape parallel to the shape of said upper section
so as to create a gap between said upper section and
said spinning blades, a motor in connection with said
motor chamber and in connection with a drive shaft,
said drive shaft in connection with said impeller
assembly so that said impeller assembly may induct air
upward through said induction chamber and with
sufficient speed to force air and water particles
through said apertures.
The examiner has not relied on any prior art as evidence of
unpatentability.
Claims 1 through 4 on appeal stand rejected under the first
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. (Examiner's answer, page 3; Office
action of July 2, 1998, paper 4, pages 2-3.)
We reverse this rejection.
As a preliminary matter, we note that the examiner does not
identify the specific requirement (i.e., best mode, enablement,
or written description) of the statutory provision being relied
upon to reject the appealed claims. Nevertheless, we presume
that the examiner is relying on the enablement requirement of the
statutory provision because the basic thrust of the rejection is
based on the allegation that the claimed invention is
inoperative. (Examiner's answer, pages 3-5; Office action of
July 2, 1998, pages 2-3.) In this regard, it appears to us that
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007