Ex Parte Gharib et al - Page 5

              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