Appeal 2007-3670
Application 10/404,701
Appellant has not defined the claim term “tubes” in the Specification.
Instead, Appellant relies on the McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and
Technical Terms as defining “tube” as “a long cylindrical body with a
hollow center used especially to convey fluid.” However, as evinced by
Webster’s New International Dictionary of the English Language, 2nd Ed.
(1950), “tube” has a broader meaning than that provided by Appellant.
Specifically, Webster’s defines “tube” as “any similar hollow conduit, often
oval, square, or polygonal in section” (Webster’s 2729).
Accordingly, applying the broadest reasonable interpretation of the
claim term “tubes,” it is reasonable to consider Hershkowitz’s passages 23
as corresponding to the claim feature “a plurality of tubes.” Am. Acad. of
Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d at 1364, 70 USPQ2d at 1830. Passages 23 are
hollow conduits having a polygonal cross-section, thus satisfying Webster’s
broader definition of the term “tube” (Hershkowitz Figure 2). Moreover, as
shown in Hershkowitz’s Figures 1 and 2, there are a plurality of passages 23
(i.e., tubes) (Hershkowitz Figures 1 and 2). Accordingly, we determine the
Examiner’s construction of the claim feature “a plurality of tubes” as
including Hershkowitz’s passages 23 to be reasonable and consistent with
Appellant’s Specification.
Regarding Appellant’s argued claim feature “each [tube] having a
discharge end through which fuel or oxidant flows and extending into the
mixing vessel and toward the exit,” the Examiner’s position is that
Hershkowitz’s disclosure to place the gas jet injector means 11 or 20 (i.e.,
the injector means 20 composed of thin metal plates 21) into the autothermal
reformer reactor 10 (i.e., mixing vessel) means the that the passages 23 (i.e.,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013