Appeal No. 2004-0630 Application No. 09/755,177 185 USPQ 156, 165 (Ct. Cl. Trial Div. 1975), aff'd per curiam 530 F.2d 896, 192 USPQ 672 (U.S. Ct. Cl. 1976) (patentability of a method claim must rest on method steps recited, not on structure used, unless structure affects method steps). Even if the apparatus recitation somehow limits the method step, we discern no merit in the appellant's implicit contention that the claim 7 method requires "a separate inlet port for introducing a solution" (Brief, page 10, emphasis deleted). Nothing in the appellant's independent claim requires that the solution inlet port be separate from the oxygen water inlet pipe. Similarly, the appellant points to nothing and we find nothing in the subject specification which requires the solution inlet port to be separate or different from the oxygen water inlet pipe. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Therefore, even when viewed in a light most generous to the appellant, claim 7 cannot be interpreted as requiring a separate inlet port for introducing a solution as the appellant seems to believe. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348, 213 USPQ 1, 5 (CCPA 1982). Finally, it is questionable whether the appellant's argument would have merit even if claim 7 were limited in the fashion urged by the appellant. This is because the solution inlet port -6-Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007