Appeal No. 2005-1115
Application 09/269,369
related” to body 25, or “tangentially disposed, as shown in Fig.
2,” so that fluid discharged therefrom will cause mixing and
agitation of fluid in container A (col. 3, ll. 34-62, and col. 5,
ll. 17-19). The tubular stem 20 is closed at one end by bull
plug 41 joined to body 25 (col. 3, ll. 69-70, and Fig. 4). The
other end of tubular stem 20 is adapted so that diffuser C can be
joined to component B by coupling means D (col. 4, ll. 1-2, and
Figs. 1 and 3). The handles 80 and paddles 90 shown attached to
tubular stem 20 are optional (col. 4, ll. 61-75).
Thus, I find that as a matter of fact, Jackson
describes diffuser C having “a pair of laterally displaced
nozzles” 27 which “nozzles” (1) are “substantially oppositely-
oriented relative to one another” on the head 21 assembly which
includes body portion 25; (2) “direct [a] pressurized solution
passing through each of said nozzles in opposite directions” as
described by Jackson; (3) are “fixed in a stationary position
thereby causing the liquid and [a] pressurized solution to
commingle” as described by Jackson; and (4) “maintain system
back pressure” to maintain dissolved gas in the solution within
the diffuser, which is all that the limitations of claim 7
require of a diffuser. Indeed, with respect to the last claim
limitation, because nozzles 27 are “jet forming,” one of ordinary
skill in this art would have reasonably inferred that, as a
matter of fact, the formation of such “jet” would necessarily,
inherently cause system back pressure within diffuser C which
would be sufficient to maintain at least some amount, however
small, of dissolved gas in solution. See In re Robertson, 169
F.3d 743, 745, 49 USPQ2d 1949, 1951 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re King,
801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
I further find, as did the examiner (answer, page 5),
that as a matter of fact, diffuser C of Jackson has tubular stem
17
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007