Appeal 2007-0492
Application 10/810,960
1 separately the merits of claims dependent on claims 50 and 61. (Brief at 13, part I.E.)
2 Rather, they argue that because the Examiner has failed to show that the independent
3 claims are unpatentable, the dependent claims have not been shown to be unpatentable
4 over the same references. For the reasons given immediately supra, we find these
5 arguments unpersuasive.
6 Finally, Appellants argue that the rejection of claims 45, 48, 61, and claims
7 dependent on them over the combined teachings of Okamoto, St-Pierre, and Ito, should
8 be reversed because Ito does not teach that the byproduct stream produced from an
9 oxygen-enrichment assembly is used "to pressurize a supply of liquid fuel." (Brief
10 at 13-14.) Appellants do not direct our attention to any definition in the record of
11 "pressurizing a supply of liquid fuel."
12 Our reviewing court has instructed that “the PTO applies to the verbiage of the
13 claims the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they
14 would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever
15 enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written
16 description contained in the applicant’s specification.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048,
17 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Appellants' specification teaches, "[f]or
18 example, [nitrogen-enriched] stream 46 may be used to pressurize a supply of a liquid
19 fuel, such as disclosed in U.S. Patent Application . . . ". (Specification at 14, ll. 16–21;
20 emphasis added.) But, as perhaps Appellants recognized, whatever that application
21 discloses (it has not been made of record in this appeal), it merely provides examples of
-20-
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013