Appeal No. 2002-0747 Page 7
Application No. 09/006,982
claim 16 indefinite. Claim 14, from which claim 16 depends, adds to claim 1 a reducing
adapter in fluid communication with the chamber at a second end thereof. Claim 16
states that the chamber has an inner diameter, and that “said reducing adapter effects
approximately 2 to 40 fold reduction in the cross-sectional area of air flow with respect
to said chamber inner diameter.” The effect of the reducing adapter is explained in the
specification as effecting “an approximately 2 to 40 fold diameter reduction with respect
to the chamber’s inner diameter” (emphasis added), which is reflected in original claim
16. While there appears to be an inconsistency between the manner in which the effect
of the reducing adaptor is recited in claim 16, that is, the comparison between the
cross-sectional area of the air flow and the inner diameter of the chamber, it is our view
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that the intent of this feature
of the invention is to have the reducing adaptor reduce the airflow by 2 to 40 fold from
that flowing through the unaltered portion of the chamber, whether expressed in relative
cross-sectional areas or diameters. Therefore, we are of the view that this matter does
not cause claim 16 to be indefinite.4
Without amplifying explanation, the examiner further concludes that “in light of
the above 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 & 112(1) rejections the claims [presumably claims 1-18]
are indefinite” (Answer, page 5). We do not agree that the mere presence of the other
4 However, consideration should be given to using either “cross-sectional area” or “diameter” as
the factor upon which the reduction in flow is based.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007