Appeal 2007-1461
Application 10/463,956
when one reads the disclosure from the viewpoint of one of ordinary skill in
the art. That is because Kychakoff discloses computing the average count as
well as a count from each detector, and when comparing “the count from
one of the detectors (e.g., 52a)” to “the count at the other detectors (e.g., 52,
52b, and 52c),” as described by Kychakoff, one would understand or infer
that “count at the other detectors” means the overall averaged count. Note
the use of the singular “count” rather than the plural “counts” in Kychakoff
(FF 9). See In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 390, 21 USPQ2d
1281, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (the dispositive question is “whether one skilled
in the art would reasonably understand or infer” that a reference teaches or
discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention).
We determine that Kychakoff determines a “delta value” within the
meaning of the claim.
Turning to the question of what kind of correlation claim 17 requires
between the detectors and the primary combustion regions, we determine
that claim 17 is broader than argued by Appellants. First, as evidenced by
the Specification, any furnace system employing multiple primary fuel
inputs has multiple “primary combustion regions” as required by claim 17
(FF 5). The fact that Kychakoff refers to “the combustion region” does not
change the fact that, as required by the claims, Kychakoff includes two fuel
inputs (nozzles 32 and 34), therefore, within the meaning of Appellants’
claim, has two primary combustion regions.
Claim 17 also requires that each of the detectors corresponds to one of
the “plurality of primary combustion regions” (FF 4), but the claim does not
exclude the presence of other detectors. Claim 17 uses the transitional
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013