Appeal No. 95-0916
Application 07/803,530
housing (19’) in such a manner so as to create a long
path for combustion gases to flow and thereby cool
prior to discharge into the air bag. Moreover, Fig. 6
shows how the gases flow in a[n] s-shaped pattern.
It would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings
of Jorgensen et al in the Goetz patent in order to
create a longer path for combustion gases to cool
before discharging into an air bag. In addition, it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to incorporate the use of a plenum(s) as
taught by Jorgensen et al in the Goetz patent in order
to allow for the neutralization of combustion gases.
The plenum(s) would thereby serve as a means for
holding neutralizing agent. [Answer, pages 4 and 5.]
We will not support the examiner’s position. First, we
cannot agree with the examiner’s findings that the filter
layers 44, 52, 54, 50 and 56 of Goetz and the filter layers 11
and 13’ of Jorgensen are “baffle enclosures.” Terms in a
claim should be interpreted in a manner consistent with the
specification and construed as those skilled in the art would
construe them (see In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833, 15 USPQ2d
1566, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1990), Specialty Composites v. Cabot
Corp., 845 F.2d 981, 986,
6 USPQ2d 1601, 1604 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Sneed, 710 F.2d
1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Here, the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007