Appeal No. 2006-0465
Application 10/445,707
skilled in this art, upon considering the language of the sixth clause of claim 1 in the context of
the claim language as a whole and in light of the written description in the specification
including the Figures, would have reasonably understood the claim to require that the arms and
specified associated components are parallel to each other and remain parallel when in operation
as viewed from a horizontal perspective, wherein the term “parallel” has its well known,
common meaning in context. In this respect, this person would have reasonably understood that
that a “horizontal direction” is a perspective in which the movement of the individual arms can
be reasonably observed when viewed horizontally. The examiner has not identified any
embodiment encompassed by the claim language which is outside of the scope of the written
description in the specification and the Figures.
Accordingly, we reverse the grounds of rejection of claims 1 through 8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, written description requirement, and second paragraph.
We next consider the teachings of Duga which issue is dispositive to the grounds of
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The disclosure at issue involves a possible alternative
embodiment and reads “[f]or example, a separate electric plunger may be operatively associated
with each plunger via appropriate support brackets, etc.” (col. 11, ll. 25-28). It is well settled
that the teachings that one of ordinary skill in this art would have found in a reference is a
question of fact. Thus, we agree with appellants that this disclosure must be considered for what
it would have disclosed to this person in light of the teachings of the reference as a whole (brief,
page 17; reply brief, page 3).
We find that Duga would have disclosed to one of ordinary skill in this art an electronic
glass feeder plunger operating device wherein, in the embodiment described, “in a feeder
plunger operating mechanism for use with at least one feeder plunger . . . attached to a common
support,” “a reversible electric motor operatively connected to positively drive said common
support in a cyclically reciprocating manner” associated with a “programmable control means”
to cause the “common support to move in a predetermined manner” (col. 3, ll. 23-37). In the
preferred embodiment, the common support includes a cantilevered plunger support bracket for
one or more plungers attached to a vertical support shaft (col. 3, ll. 37-56). As illustrated by
Duga, in feeder plunger operating mechanism 10, plunger carrier disk 40 to which three plungers
12,14,16 for the respective orifices are attached, is at the end of lateral plunger support bracket
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007