Appeal No. 95-3451
Application No. 08/097,588
The appellant “acknowledges that the gas ejector ring 260
disclosed in Figures 12 and 13 [of Hansen] is within the broad
description of Appellant’s gas diffuser 10” but argues that
“[e]ach of the claims on appeal, however, includes limitations
which are not disclosed by Hansen” (Brief, page 6).
Specifically, the appellant argues that Hansen contains
no teaching or suggestion of the independent claim 9
limitation of “said gas diffuser having a circumferential
radius less than or equal to the radius of said tube.” We
cannot agree. Patentee discloses a processing chamber (e.g.,
see 104 of Figure 3) having gas injector rings (see 108 and
110 of Figure 3) which are shown more specifically in Figures
12 and 13 as comprising an inlet port 266 leading to ring 264
which supports diffusing means 262 (see columns 22 and 23).
Particularly in light of the appellant’s previously mentioned
acknowledgment, we consider it reasonable and consistent with
the subject specification to interpret the appealed claim 9
tube as reading on Hansen’s inlet port 266/support ring 264.
In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.
1983) (application claims are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007