Appeal No. 96-2608
Application 08/068,498
evaluate the possibility of infringement and dominance. See, In
re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 166 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1970). Like
appellants, we have no doubt that the term “itself” in claims 1
and 4 on appeal refers back to the inboard portion of the
adapter, and therefore that independent claims 1 and 4, and
dependent claims 5, 8 and 11, do particularly point out and
distinctly claim that which appellants regard as their invention
and are definite within the meaning of the Statute.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner's rejection of
appellants' claims 1, 4, 5, 8 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph.
We next look to the examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 2
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Stallmann.
Like the examiner, we view the removable and replaceable plastic
insert (4) of Stallmann’s centrifuge rotor as being an “adapter”
for use in the centrifuge rotor. As seen in Figures 1-3 of
Stallmann, the rotor itself is formed of the hub (1), lower part
(2) and upper part (3) which are configured and arranged to
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007