Appeal 2007-1434
Application 10/610,718
such velocity and speed of sound can be generated in a jet engine. One of ordinary
skill is left to speculate as to whether fluid is injected or fluid is extracted. Is this
bypass gas? Is it makeup gas? Is it bleed gas? There is simply no disclosure of how
flows of this specific range of velocity and speed of sound are generated vis-à-vis
flows of velocity and speed of sound outside the desired range.
4. There is no working example. While Appellants’ Specification seems
to indicate that tests have been performed so that noise reduction potential could be
established as shown in the Graphs in Appellants’ Figures, the working examples
have not be shared in the Specification.
With respect to the so-called Wands factors, we note that the amount of
direction and guidance presented in the Specification is practically nil. There is an
absence of working examples. The state of the prior art is such that, at least as to
the prior art cited fluidic controls of sound abatement they are not well known. The
claims are broad. While the so-called Wands factors are merely illustrative and not
mandatory, we notice that all these factors point to a conclusion that the amount of
experimentation required of one of ordinary skill to make and use the invention of
a thermal acoustic shield would be undue.
Claims 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
indefinite. According to Appellants, a thermal acoustic shield is a “thin layer of
flow that partially surrounds the main jet 32 and is characterized by a proper
combination of velocity and speed of sound.” Specification 0024. Following this
definition in the Specification ranges are given. The ranges are quite broad. Our
concern with the claims on appeal and this definition of thermal acoustic shield is
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013