Appeal 2007-3670
Application 10/404,701
plurality of tubes extending into the mixing vessel, or "[t]he first inlet’s
plurality of tubes extending into the mixing vessel and towards the exit such
that the discharge ends of the tubes are downstream of the discharge ends of
the second inlet" (Reply Br. 4). Appellant argues that Hershkowitz does not
disclose “a mixing vessel (chamber) 32” or a “plurality of tubes extending
into the mixing vessel (chamber)” (Br. 7). Relying on the definition of
“tube” provided by the McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical
Terms, 6th Ed. (2003)1, Appellant argues that Hershkowitz’s passages 23 are
not tubes (Reply Br. 3). Appellant argues that Hershkowitz’s disclosure that
Figure 1 is a “diagrammatic illustration” indicates that Figure 1 is not a
physical representation of the apparatus and, thus, cannot show “a plurality
of tubes” (Reply Br. 4).
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments and are unpersuaded
for the reasons below.
During examination, “claims … are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and … claim
language should be read in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech.
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Regarding Appellant’s first argued claim feature, “the first inlet
comprising a plurality of tubes” claim feature, the Examiner takes the
position that Hershkowitz’s passages 23 correspond to the “plurality of
tubes” claim feature (Answer 9). We agree.
1 A copy of Appellant’s definition from the McGraw-Hill Dictionary of
Scientific and Technical Terms is attached to the Reply Brief.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013