Appeal No. 2004-1419
Application 09/733,041
degree of specificity and, for that reason, will not sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph.
However, we agree with the examiner that claim 39 on appeal
is indefinite, since it appears that the “compressed air” recited
in claim 39 is provided in the receptacle in addition to the
non-liquefied compressed gas set forth in claim 15. Contrary to
appellant’s view, noted on page 6 of the brief, claim 39 does not
set forth that the gas of claim 15 is compressed air, but instead
merely recites a receptacle as in claim 15 “containing compressed
air.” If appellant intended to further limit the non-liquefied
gas of claim 15, then claim 39 should have been directed to a
receptacle according to claim 15 wherein said non-liquefied
compressed gas is compressed air. In light of the foregoing, the
examiner’s rejection of claim 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, will be sustained.
Turning next to the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 5,
7, 10 through 12, 23, 33 and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Lund, we note that while it is true that the Lund
patent teaches a swirling effect nozzle (Figs. 1-4) having
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007