Appeal 2007-0113
Application 10/353,776
practiced the claimed invention without undue experimentation. Id. See
also In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220, 169 USPQ 367 (CCPA 1971).
Appellants’ claims recite a method of producing thrust from fluid jet
pulses comprising the steps of providing a jet nozzle and controlling a
formation number F and a pulsing frequency f to optimize the thrust. In
order to control the formation number F and pulsing frequency f to optimize
the thrust, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have to know or be able
to determine the optimum values for F and f. Appellants’ Specification
discloses that the optimum formation number F is “around 4; more
specifically 4 ± 0.5” in cases where the flow at the nozzle exit is
“substantially uniform” and decreases as the flow becomes less uniform, and
can be as low as 1.0, but does not specify how the optimum formation
number varies with degree of uniformity (Fact 4). Moreover, Appellants’
Specification discloses two ranges for the optimum non-dimensional pulsing
frequency StL, but does not disclose under what conditions either of those
two ranges applies. Id. Further, while the Bremhorst and Hollis article may
establish that techniques were known in the art at the time of Appellants’
invention for measuring flow velocities across the jet nozzle, the article does
not provide any guidance as to how velocity affects the optimum formation
number or pulsing frequency (Fact 3). Accordingly, the question before us
is whether a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellants’
invention could have determined the optimum formation number F and
pulsing frequency from Appellants’ Specification without undue
experimentation.
Factors to be considered in determining whether a disclosure would
require undue experimentation include (1) the quantity of experimentation
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013