Appeal No. 2005-0510
Application No. 09/883,435
2). See the specification, page 12, ll. 8-10, where the “adjacent
reaction chambers are each separated from one another by a common
vessel wall”; page 20, ll. 19-20, “respective reaction chambers 6
lying adjacent to one another are separated from one another by at
least one common vessel wall 5"; page 21, ll. 5-7, “respectively
adjacent reservoirs 7 which are separated from one another by only
a vessel wall 5 form a total of 8 reservoirs 7 separated from one
another and disposed in immediately adjacent rows parallel with one
another”; and page 24, ll. 12-13, “[r]espective immediately
adjacent reaction chambers 6 are laterally offset from one another
by the row width 24, being demarcated from one another by a common
vessel wall 5" (see also Figures 2, 4 and 6). Accordingly, we
determine that the specification provides a clear definition in
context of “immediately adjacent” to mean “with only a common wall
between,” with no limitation as to the size or breadth of the wall.
With this claim construction in mind, we compare the claimed
subject matter with the disclosure of Kim. Kim discloses a
crystallization tray 10 corresponding to the “at least one housing
part” of claim 1 on appeal, with several crystallization units 26
which correspond to the claimed “several walled reaction chambers,
each forming a separate gas chamber, and each walled reaction
chamber having inside thereof a reservoir and several reaction
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007