Appeal No. 2005-1115
Application 09/269,369
the limitations of the appealed claims. In interpreting claim
language, the claim terms are given their ordinary meaning unless
another meaning is intended by appellant as established in the
written description of the specification, mindful that
limitations, including preferred embodiments, of the
specification, are not read into the claims unless there is basis
in the claim language or specification to do so. See generally,
Morris, 127 F.3d at 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d at 1027; Zletz, 893 F.2d
at 321-22, 13 USPQ2d at 1322.
In the specification, appellant describes “diffuser 71”
from his United States Patent 5,487,835 (‘835 patent), of record,
as having “three rectangular sides defining a triangular
prismatic structure” which “is inserted normal to the direction
of flow of the water stream” wherein “carbonic acid is passed
through one end of the diffuser” while maintained at “elevated
pressure,” for which purpose, the diffuser “has a plurality of
outlet holes on two of the rectangular sides” (pages 2-3). The
diffuser 71 as described by appellant appears in FIGs. 3 and 4 as
described at cols. 5-6 of the ‘835 patent. While there is
disclosure in the ‘835 patent with respect to the orientation
that diffuser 71 can assume in a container, it is clear from the
disclosure in the ‘835 patent and appellant’s description thereof
in the present application that the container in which this
apparatus is positioned and any orientation of diffuser 71
therein in this respect is not part of diffuser 71.
In similar manner, in the present application, the
“diffuser” illustrated and described with respect to
specification FIGs. 1, 2, 3 and 5 is merely an apparatus that has
injectors, outlet holes or obround outlets, respectively, which
permit a pressured gas containing solution to pass into a liquid
in a container without regard to the container in which this
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007