Appeal 2007-0512
Application 10/310,744
(opening) and that separate channels would have clear demarcations such as
sidewalls and there is no suggestion of having at least two channels in the
nozzle described in the disclosure." (Answer at 4.)
27. The Examiner also finds that "[t]he appellant has presented these
claims in a effort to provoke interference with U.S. Patent 6,610,159, where
the reference to U.S. patent '159 clearly disclosed separate channels as
depicted in figure 2 therein where vanes 104 separated the individual
channels." (Answer at 4.)
28. With regard to claims 29 and 44, the Examiner finds that there is no
description of a nozzle having three channels. (Answer at 5.)
29. With regard to claim 36, the Examiner finds that there is no
description of a nozzle having a plurality of channels.
30. Throughout prosecution, the Examiner has found that the term
"channel" applies to structures such as those disclosed by Heneger as having
including walls and an opening that separate one channel from an adjacent
channel, as opposed to structures such as the nozzle shown in Appellants'
Figure 6.
Appellants’ argument
31. Appellants urge that "[t]he channels are recognized by one skilled in
the art due to the different flow paths and dynamics of the fluid not due to
any demarcated sidewalls." (Brief at 10.)
32. Before the Board, Appellants cite no testimony from one
knowledgeable in the art, nor any other evidence of the use of that term by
the prior art, such as review articles, technical encyclopedias or dictionaries,
or examples of use of the term "channel" in the prior art.
-12-
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013