Appeal No. 2005-1115
Application 09/269,369
WARREN, Administrative Patent Judge, Dissenting:
I respectfully disagree with the panel’s decision to
reverse the decision of the examiner that appealed claims 1, 3
through 5, 7 and 11 through 13 are unpatentable over the applied
prior art because I am of the view that the examiner’s grounds of
rejection of all of the appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a )
based on Jackson must be affirmed in view of the invention
encompassed by the claims on appeal. I take this position for
the following reasons.
It is well settled that in order to apply the prior art
to a claim, the claim terms must first be interpreted by giving
them the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
written description in the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in this art, without reading
into the claim any limitation or particular embodiment which is
disclosed in the specification. See, e.g., In re Morris, 127
F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In re
Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir.
1989). The plain language of appealed independent claim 1
specifies “[a] diffuser” comprising at least “a pair of laterally
displaced nozzles,” which “nozzles” (1) are “substantially
oppositely-oriented relative to one another;” (2) “direct [a]
pressurized solution passing through each of said nozzles in
opposite directions;” (3) are “fixed in a stationary position
thereby causing the liquid and [a] pressurized solution to
commingle;” and (4) “maintain system back pressure of
approximately 45 psi to approximately 55 psi on the solution to
maintain the dissolved carbon dioxide gas in the solution within
the diffuser” (emphasis supplied). I note that the preambular
language of claim 1 provides that the claimed “diffuser” is “for
introducing a pressurized solution including dissolved carbon
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007