Appeal No. 2007-0379 Page 7
Application No. 10/045,301
finds that “[c]laim 20, as amended, also has the limitation [that] ‘said separate
unit [108, 110] does not share said cabinet’.” Id. According to the examiner,
“[t]his negative limitation is not supported by the disclosure in the specification
and claims as originally filed.” Answer, bridging sentence, pages 3-4. In the
examiner’s opinion, appellant’s specification “do[es] not provide a disclosure for
separate cabinets.” Answer, page 4.
In response appellant directs attention to page 6, lines 8-12 of the
specification. Page 6, lines 5-12 specification (emphasis added) states that
[b]y designing equipment with an integral treated water
source, significant advantages are achieved. For example, as will
be discussed in detail below, water and energy conservation can be
significantly enhanced, for example by using input or drain water to
cool the condenser in systems that include vapor compression
refrigeration systems. Furthermore, manufacturing and
maintenance costs are reduced, because the treated water source
is built in as part of the host equipment, thereby eliminating the
need for two cabinets, two sets of electronic controls, and other
redundant systems. Similarly, installation costs are greatly
reduced, as only one piece of equipment needs to be installed.
As we understand it, this section of appellant’s specification discloses the
advantages of an integrated system wherein both the treated water source and
the host equipment are included in a single cabinet. However, the examiner
asserts (Answer, page 3, emphasis added), “[w]hile having a shared cabinet may
be construed as being disclosed by the [sic] lines 8-11 of page 6 of the
specification, these lines do not provide the disclosure to support the claim
limitation that the cabinet would make the water source and water-using unit
integral.” We disagree.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013