Appeal 2007-0113
Application 10/353,776
Appellants’ failure to list and append the Bremhorst and Hollis article
in the Appendix of Evidence section of the Appeal Brief, the content
of which reads, in its entirety, “None” (Appeal Br. 19), we assume
from Appellants’ brief discussion of this article on page 10 of the
Appeal Brief that Appellants are relying on it in their argument
against the enablement rejection. We thus find the evidentiary record
before us to be different from the record before the prior panel in
Appeal 2002-1433. The other three references submitted in the
appendix to the Response are not relied on in Appellants’ Appeal
Brief. Accordingly, we have not considered them in reaching our
decision in this appeal.1
2. We additionally note the claims have been amended subsequent to the
decision in Appeal 2002-1433. Claims 2-7 before us in this appeal do
not include the step of emitting a stream of fluid from a nozzle in
pulses, recited in independent claim 1 before the panel in Appeal
2002-1433 in the parent application. Thus, the claims before us in this
appeal are different from the ones involved in Appeal 2002-1433.
3. Appellants rely on the Bremhorst and Hollis article to show that laser
Doppler anemometers and hot-wire anemometers for measuring flow
velocities across the jet nozzle were known in the art at the time of
Appellants’ invention (App. Br. 10). We find no teaching, and
Appellants have not pointed to any teaching, in the Bremhorst and
Hollis article that defines “substantially uniform” flow or discusses
assessing degree of uniformity of velocities across a jet nozzle. Nor
1 We will not sift through the cited references speculating on the particular
teachings therein on which Appellants might intend to rely.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013