Appeal 2007-0494
Application 10/447,446
claimed] ‘essentially continuous outlet . . . extending around the
outside of the vacuum valve opening’ limitation to encompass
Senba’s discrete gas port locations . . .” (Request 5).
As an initial matter, we note that Appellants have not disputed
our construction of the claim phrases “essentially continuous” and
“extending around” (Request 2). In the Decision, we construed
“essentially continuous” as including “a series of discrete holes or
slots as long as the essentially continuous flow around the seat
opening is not affected” (Decision 7). We construed “extending
around” to mean “the purge gas outlet(s) is/are placed along the
perimeter of but outside of the valve opening” (Decision 7).
Appellants’ arguments appear to take issue with how we applied our
construction of “essentially continuous” and “extending around” to
include Senba’s two or four gas outlets.
Regarding the “essentially continuous” claim phrase,
Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive primarily because a “series”
includes two or more items in succession. Accordingly, as explained
on pages 7 and 8 of the Decision, Senba’s two or four gas ports would
constitute a “series” of holes thus satisfying the “essentially
continuous” claim feature.
Regarding the “extending around” claim feature, for the reasons
stated on pages 7 and 8 of the Decision, Senba’s two or four gas ports
satisfy the Appellants’ “extending around” claim feature because the
gas ports are positioned along the perimeter but outside of the valve
opening 2.
Appellants’ arguments regarding the functional limitation of
independent claims 1, 9, and 12 (i.e., the outlet “evenly distributes the
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013