Appeal No. 2003-0304
Application 09/703,302
for transporting the liquid oxygen from the source into the
annular chamber, it is clear to us that Mirville does not
anticipate appellant’s invention as defined in claim 1 on appeal.
Accordingly, the examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and of claims 2
through 14 which depend therefrom, will not be sustained.
Independent claims 15 and 16 on appeal, however, are of a
considerably different scope than claim 1 discussed above. In
both of claims 15 and 16 the gaseous-fuel breathing rocket engine
is defined in terms of either means or structure for performing a
function, with the result being that the functional recitations
of these claims each actually constitute merely an intended use
or capability of the recited means or structure, and do not
positively limit the structure or means in any other way. As an
example, we read appellant’s claim 15 on the engine seen in
Figure 1 of Mirville, noting that the engine of Figure 1 in
Mirville is a rocket engine capable of serving as a gaseous-fuel
breathing engine, and comprises a gas duct (11) defining an
intake capable of handling a gaseous fuel; means (3, 4) for
compressing any gas within the duct, including a gaseous fuel;
means (17) for injecting a gaseous material (e.g., fuel or
oxidizer) into the compressed gas flow downstream of the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007