Appeal 2007-0113
Application 10/353,776
therefore the wave most capable of reaching a large amplitude before
saturating” (Crow 547).
10. Crow does not mention a formation number F. Since the frequency f
(Facts 8 and 9) used by Crow in calculating the Strouhal number
corresponds to Appellants’ frequency f=1/T, where T is the period
between two adjacent surges or pulses, and is not the inverse of
Appellants’ pulse duration t, Crow’s Strouhal number is not the
inverse of Appellants’ formation number F, which is calculated using
pulse duration t, not pulse period T between adjacent pulses.
11. Crow evidences the complicated and unpredictable nature of fluid
flow from jet nozzles.
DISCUSSION
Res judicata
The submission of new evidence not before the panel in reaching their
Decision in Appeal 2002-1433, in the form of the above-mentioned article
by Bremhorst and Hollis, relied upon by Appellants in their Appeal Brief
(Fact 1), and the difference in the scope of the claims before us in this appeal
as compared with the claims before the panel in Appeal 2002-1433 (Fact 2)
present us with a different record than that in the earlier appeal and require
us to interpret the scope of the claims before us and to consider and weigh
anew the totality of the evidence in making a determination as to whether the
enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, has been
satisfied. We therefore conclude that the doctrine of res judicata does not
apply. See In re Herr, 377 F.2d 610, 611-12, 153 USPQ 548, 549 (CCPA
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013