Appeal No. 2003-0806 Page 3
Application No. 09/219,275
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The two independent claims on appeal, claims 1 and 22, read as follows:
1. A fluid bed processing system for particles comprising:
an expansion chamber;
at least one spraying apparatus, at least a portion of
the spraying apparatus extending into the expansion
chamber; and
a plurality of single nozzles spaced along the portion
of the spraying apparatus that extends into the expansion
chamber;
wherein the portion of said spraying apparatus that
extends into the expansion chamber is substantially straight,
has an elongated wand-shape, and comprises
a plurality of fluid passages, wherein each of the
single nozzles is connected to a different one of the fluid
passages, and
at least one gas passage connected to each of the
single nozzles.
22. A fluid bed processing system for particles comprising:
an expansion chamber;
at least one spraying apparatus having a spray
housing that includes a main passage, at least a portion of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007