Appeal 2007-0113
Application 10/353,776
does the article provide any guidance as to how velocity affects the
optimum formation number or pulsing frequency.
4. Appellants’ Specification teaches that the performance of the pulse jet
is optimized by controlling two parameters, which include the
formation number F (as defined in claim 2, reproduced above) and the
pulsing frequency f=1/T (Spec. 6:7 to 7:6).2 Appellants point out the
pulsing frequency f may also be expressed as a non-dimensional
number StL=fL/U=t/T (Spec. 7:6-11). Appellants’ Specification
further discloses that the optimum formation number F is “around 4;
more specifically 4 ± 0.5” for the case where the flow at the nozzle
exit is “substantially uniform (e.g. within 10-20%) across the nozzle
cross-section” and decreases, to as low as 1.0, as the flow becomes
less uniform (Spec. 7:13-18). Appellants’ Specification does not
provide any guidance whatsoever as to how the optimum formation
number varies with degree of uniformity of flow. The Specification
discloses two ranges 0.45 < StL < 0.55 and 0.80 < StL < 0.90 (Spec.
7:19 to 8:1) for pulsing frequency, but does not indicate under what
conditions these two different ranges apply.
5. The parenthetical “(e.g. within 10-20%)” (Spec. 7:13-18), in using
language of an exemplary nature, fails to clearly define the metes and
bounds of the phrase “substantially uniform” to permit one of ordinary
skill in the art to ascertain the scope of the term “substantially,” which
2 Appellants’ Specification uses “f” to denote the “pulsing frequency” while
claim 2 uses “f” to denote “pulsing frequency.” For consistency in our
opinion, we use the claim convention “f” to denote “pulsing frequency.” In
the event of further prosecution of this application, Appellants should amend
either the claims or the Specification for consistency.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013