Appeal No. 96-2267
Application 08/154,344
lines of claim 1 must be interpreted as requiring that means to
be normally closed unless manually manipulated to an open
condition. In contrast to this, Gabbay describes the lips or
cusps 4 and 5 as being arranged
so that the discharges from the cervix, such as
menstrual fluid, will have the greatest possible area
to flow out of the valve. These discharges must be
able to flow out easily; if they cannot they will be
kept in contact with the cervix and will lead to
infections of the cervix. . . . As menstrual fluid
fills the space 13 [where the lips join the dome] it
will put pressure on the base 14 of the dome to cause
lip 4 to be biased away from lip 5 to let the menstrual
fluid pass out of the valve. The flexibility of the
lips is such that if only a small amount of fluid is to
be discharged, the section of the lips upstream of the
fluid will close while that downstream will open.
[column 5, line 57 through column 6, line 5; emphasis
added]
In light of this disclosure, we can think of no circumstances
under which the artisan would construe Gabbay’s lips 4 and 5 to
correspond to the claimed “means for normally closing . . .” when
the claim language is interpreted in a manner consistent with the
appellant’s specification.
In addition, we agree with appellant that the examiner’s
position that the “the edges of the passage [formed by the lips 4
and 5] may be squeezed to open the passage” (answer, page 5) is
pure conjecture. First, Gabbay does not disclose, or desire,
such operation. Second, in that Gabbay states that lips 4 and 5
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007