Ex Parte Shane - Page 14

          Appeal No. 2005-1115                                                        
          Application 09/269,369                                                      

          also, e.g., The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College                
          Edition 395-96 (Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1982).                    
                    I cannot find in appealed claims 1 and 7 any limitation           
          which requires a different definition of the term “a diffuser”              
          than the written description in the specification conveys to one            
          of ordinary skill in this art.  Indeed, the limitations                     
          characterizing the “nozzles” of the claimed “diffuser” in claims            
          1 and 7 are found in diffuser 110 of FIG. 7 because the nozzles             
          112 are fixed to elongated body 114 in the specified positioning            
          relative to one another for the specified direction of the                  
          pressurized fluid, thus capable of “causing” a liquid and a                 
          pressurized solution “to commingle,” that is, “[t]o blend or                
          cause to blend,” in any manner and to any extent, however small,            
          in any container.  See, e.g., The American Heritage Dictionary,             
          Second College Edition 297.  The fourth limitation characterizing           
          the “nozzles” in claim 1 is found in diffuser 110 of FIG. 7                 
          because the plain language of the claims requires that the                  
          nozzles must be capable of maintaining “system back pressure” in            
          the diffuser per se just as described in the specification (page            
          16).  The limitations of appealed claims 3 through 5 and 11                 
          through 13 are satisfied by the diffuser 110 of FIG. 7 as well.             
               Further, in this respect, when the preambular language of              
          the claims coupled with the last limitation of the “nozzles” in             
          each (see above pp. 9-10) is considered in the context of the               
          claimed invention as a whole, including consideration thereof in            
          light of the written description in appellant’s specification,              
          the same constitutes an intended use of a diffuser having nozzles           
          that are capable of maintaining system back pressure in that use            
          as specified, and thus this claim language adds no additional               
          structural limitation(s) to the claims.  See generally, Corning             
          Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elect. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1257,           
                                          14                                          


Page:  Previous  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007