Appeal No. 2006-0378 4
Application No. 10/052,703
What the Examiner’s analysis overlooks is the scope of the
claim. The words “inlet” and “outlet” as used in the claims must
be read in light of the specification as those words would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Am.
Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827,
1830 (Fed. Cir. 2004)(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.").
One of ordinary skill in the art understands an “inlet”, in the
context of a circulating system, to be an opening providing a
means of entrance or intake into a structure: it is located at
the boundary of the structure being entered. An inlet allows
fluid to pass from outside the structure to a point inside the
structure. Likewise, an outlet is a passage for escape or exit
from a structure. Appellants use these terms in conformance with
their ordinary meaning. In each of the embodiments of Figures 2-
4, Appellants describe the coolant inlets and outlets of the
plate as located “along the edge of the third plate 350”
(specification, p. 6, ll. 25-28) or along the sides of the third
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007