Appeal No. 95-0072
Application 07/922,796
appeal depend. For that reason, all of the examiner’s rejections
fail.
The examiner’s arguments notwithstanding, we do not believe
that the worker having ordinary skill in this art would find in
Ollis any teaching or suggestion of a “pre-filling chamber
having a common admission channel for receiving a plurality of
leads, which are loosely bundled together to form a bundle having
a bundle diameter, said common admission channel having a
diameter of the through-opening thereof slightly larger than said
bundle diameter,” with the “pre-filling chamber having openings
for said admission channel, said coating nozzle and said bypass
and being otherwise closed and pressurizable,” all as recited in
claim 1. Unlike the structure disclosed and claimed by the
appellants, Ollis’ conical opening is not a “chamber” within the 2
customary meaning of that term, i.e., “a compartment or enclosed
space” or “cavity”. Nor is it reasonable to construe the
upstream end of that conical opening as a channel having a
diameter slightly larger than a bundle of loosely bundled leads.
Indeed, the leads entering the upstream end are illustrated as
2Jess Stein (Editor), The Random House College Dictionary,
223 (Revised Ed., New York, Random House, Inc., 1982); Margery S.
Berube (Editor), The American Heritage Dictionary, 257 (2d
College Ed., Boston, MA, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1982).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007