Appeal No. 95-4246
Application 08/201,052
these claims as being unpatentable over Sharon in view of
McFee.
As to claim 23, the meaning of the language “said
contacting wall is broader in cross-sectional area than said
barrel” is somewhat unclear in that it compares an area (the
cross-sectional area of the contacting wall) to an element per
se (the barrel). Giving this language its broadest reasonable
interpretation, we interpret the above quoted language of
claim 23 to mean that the diameter of the contacting wall is
greater than the diameter of the barrel. As interpreted,
claim 23 also does not patentably distinguish over the
modified Sharon tip member.
In light of the foregoing, we will sustain the § 103
rejection of claims 18-23 and 31-35 as being unpatentable over
Sharon in view of McFee.
Claims 24-26 depend from claim 18 and add that the barrel
includes means for introducing a purging gas into the barrel
(claim 24), means for venting debris purged by the gas from
the barrel (claim 25), and the location of the exhaust means
being proximate the aperture of the barrel (claim 26). We
-13-
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007