Appeal 2007-2483
Application 09/899,183
defines the nozzle in terms of other structures that are near and thermally
insulate the nozzle, but not in terms of what structures constitute the nozzle
itself. As explained below, however, we need not resolve this contest since
claim 15 would have been obvious even with Mitsubishi's construction.
adjacent
The examiner and Mitsubishi cite a general dictionary definition in
support of competing constructions of the word "adjacent". Neither,
however, provides a copy of the definition or lists it as evidence on appeal so
we accord no weight to the absent dictionary definition. In any case, general
dictionary definitions are entitled to less weight than definitions or usage in
the specification or in the art.10 Mitsubishi has not pointed us to any place in
the disclosure where the word "adjacent" appears. Indeed, the best evidence
in the record actually before us on appeal appears in two cited references:
the Li11 and Zhao12 patents.
Li uses "adjacent" and "immediately adjacent" to describe the
proximity of a curtain gas inlet port 28 and a thermocouple 32, respectively,
to a cooling jacket 26, all shown in FIG. 2 (reproduced below).13 The
structures in both cases are fairly near but not touching the cooling jacket.
Li also discloses an evaporator unit 58 that is bolted to "adjacent units" in
10 Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1478,
45 USPQ2d 1429, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
11 Ting Kai Li & Dane C. Scott, Liquid vaporizer system and method, US
5,835,678 (issued 10 November 1998) (Li). The Examiner's Answer (Ans.)
has a typographical error in the Li patent number on page 3 in the evidence
list.
12 Jun Zhao et al., Chemical vapor deposition vaporizer, US 6,210,485 B1
(issued 3 April 2001) (Zhao).
13 Li 10:20-29.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013