Opinion ID: 748431
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Addition of Separate from the Combustion Air Stream

Text: 26 The district court held that addition of the words separate from the combustion air stream was a substantive change in the scope of claims 2 and 13. Bloom argues that this change merely clarified the nature of the gas stream as described in the specification and drawings, and that original claims 2 and 13, correctly construed, were implicitly limited in the way that was made explicit by this amendment. 27 Bloom states that it was compelled to add these words to the claims because the reexamination examiner gave the nozzle means in original claim 13 an unduly broad construction, in accordance with examination practices that have been approved by this court, thereby obliging Bloom to amend the claims to state explicitly that the gas stream was separate from the combustion air stream. Bloom states that the separate gas steam was always an implicit limitation in the claims, for that is the only method of operation illustrated in the specification. Bloom argues that in accordance with § 112 p 6 2 the nozzle means was already so limited without its explicit recitation in claim 13, and thus its addition to claim 13 was not a substantive change in scope. 28 The district court did not agree with Bloom's analysis. Nor do we. The specification describes the injected gas stream as a source, which may include air, POC [products of combustion] or gaseous fuel. A separate gas stream was not a necessary limitation as set forth in the patent, and was not included in original claims 2 and 13. The amendment narrowed the claims to exclude an injected gas stream that includes combustion air, and to require a separate combustion air stream. This change was necessary in order to distinguish Bloom's injected stream from that shown in the British patent. The British patent was newly cited prior art, and the claims were narrowed and limited in view of that patent. The district court correctly viewed this as a substantive change in claim scope. 29 The burner installations here charged with infringement were completed, sold, and installed before issuance of the reexamination certificate. Consequently, Bloom is not entitled to damages for infringement during the period before grant of the reexamined claims. 30 Costs to North American. 31 AFFIRMED.