Appeal 2007-1434
Application 10/610,718
that we are of the view that one of ordinary skill operating as a potential infringer
could not determine the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter and could
not ascertain whether his jet engine noise abatement system would come under the
claims on appeal. In this regard there is little guidance or direction presented about
whether flows around an existing jet engine come under the claimed subject
matter. Since a potential infringer could not determine what subject matter was
covered by the claims and what subject matter was outside the scope of the claims,
the claims are indefinite.
Claims 13-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
indefinite. Appellants, in the Brief at page 6, last line, define a fluidic chevron as a
vortex generator that operates by injecting fluid. The Specification concurs with
this definition in paragraph 0019 wherein a fluidic chevron is defined as a vortex
generator. On the other hand, the Specification in paragraph 0021 discusses steady
or pulsed vortex generator jets and introduces an acronym PVGJ. The jets 10 are
injected around an aircraft engine exhaust nozzle for mixing enhancement in the
exhaust flow and creating vortexes therein. Therefore it seems clear that a jet of
fluid is injected in the main flow to generate a vortex. Additionally, to maintain the
analogy between mechanical chevrons and fluidic ones, it would appear that fluidic
chevrons should be understood to be vortex generators that operate on the
principles of fluidics.
Turning to claim 13, note that the claims states that a fluidic chevron is
“injected.” As noted above, the fluidic chevron is a vortex generator and what is
injected into the main jet stream is actually a jet of fluid. In our view, Appellants
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013