Appeal No. 2004-0323 Page 13
Application No. 09/716,045
Regarding claims 7 and 12, we agree with the examiner that the phrase "certain
ones of the fans being turned off so that the only ones of said fans being operated are
within the then current diameter of said chamber" renders the claim indefinite. The
appellants' argument that this function is set forth on pages 7-8 of the specification is
not persuasive since pages 7-8 of the specification provide that certain ones of the fans
18 can be turned off when secondary wall 21 is utilized within the primary wall 12 but
such is not claimed. In that regard, parent claim 1 provides that the surface of the
primary wall, not a secondary wall, defines the diameter of the column of air and
therefor none of the fans would be turned off as set forth in the disclosure.
We agree with the examiner that there is no antecedent basis for "said inner
wall" in claim 10 thus making that claim indefinite. The appellants' argument that claim
10 is dependent on claim 4, which is in turn dependent on claim 1, which references an
"inner wall" is not persuasive since (1) claim 10 is dependent from claim 6, which is in
turn dependent on claim 2, which is in turn dependent on claim 1; and (2) claims 1, 2
and 6 do not provide any antecedent support for "said inner wall."
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 2,
4, 7, 10, 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is affirmed with respect
to claims 2, 7, 10 and 12 and reversed with respect to claims 4 and 13.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007