Appeal 2007-0113
Application 10/353,776
section, as recited in claims 4 and 5, can be reasonably ascertained by a
person of ordinary skill in the art in light of Appellants’ Specification.
With respect to the enablement rejection, the issue presented is
whether the Examiner has advanced acceptable reasoning as to why
Appellants’ Specification is inadequate to permit a person of ordinary skill
in the art to make and/or use Appellants’ invention without undue
experimentation. In particular, this issue turns on the relationship between
the degree of uniformity of the velocity of the fluid and at least the
formation number F.
Finally, the anticipation issue turns on whether the Examiner has
articulated a reasonable basis to support the determination that Crow teaches
a method of controlling a formation number F as defined in Appellants’
claim 2 and a pulsing frequency f=1/T to optimize thrust.
THE FACTS
1. Appellants submitted, as an appendix to the response filed June 15,
2005 in the present application, four publications to show that
“various parameters” used in Appellants’ Specification and claims
allegedly characterized by the USPTO as not properly described under
35 U.S.C. § 112, “are indeed known and well documented” (Response
11). With the exception of the article by Bremhorst and Hollis (Klaus
Bremhorst et al., Velocity Field of an Axisymmetric Pulsed, Subsonic
Air Jet, 28 AIAA Journ. No. 12, 2043, 2043-2049 (1989), which is
referenced by Appellants on page 10 of their Appeal Brief, Appellants
have not specifically discussed the four submitted articles or specified
the showings for which Appellants rely upon them. Notwithstanding
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013