Appeal No. 2005-1349 Page 5
Application No. 10/079,686
(CCPA 1971), a claim may not be rejected solely because of the type of language used
to define the subject matter for which patent protection is sought.
With this as background, we analyze the specific bases set forth by the examiner
for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, made by the examiner of the
claims on appeal (see pages 3-4 of the answer). The first basis is that:
Claim 1 recites ". . . disks form phase shifted on 180 degrees waves of pulsations
. . . ", which is not clear and indefinite [sic, definite].
The second basis is that:
Claim 3 recites "additional orifices'' without proper antecedent basis. "Orifices'' is
[sic, are] not previously recited in claim 1.
The third basis is that:
Claim 5 recites ". . .disk for creation of phase shifted on 180 degrees waves of
pulsation . . .", which again, is not clear. It is not clear what "phase shifted on
180 degrees waves of pulsation" is.
The appellants' specification (p. 3) provides that:
The interference disk has central and secondary channels that separate the initial
pulsated flow into several flows in which 180-degree phase-shifted waves of
pulsations are formed. These waves interfere where the channels are connected
which results in the reduction of pulsations in the output flow. lf there is a need
for additional reduction of pulsations, another disk is placed consequently in the
device. To minimize the diameter of the disk, a geometric configuration of the
secondary channels is optimized by means of combinations of corresponding
spirals, and segments of arcs. The disk may have additional orifices and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007