Appeal No. 98-0605
Application 08/383,191
USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and Hazani v. Int’l Trade
Comm’n, 126 F.3d 1473, 1477,
44 USPQ2d 1358, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Here, the apparatus
claims (independent claims 1 and 16) and the method claim
(independent claim 27) require that the apparatus for, or step
of, blowing air (1) be "substantially free of conduits which
are internal to the roof system" and (2) that "substantially
all" of the quantity of the blown air be forced "directly into
the roof system at a location in the roof system immediately
adjacent either "the exhaust port seal" (claim 1), "the
housing seal" (claim 16) or the "the area from which
insulation was removed" (claim 27). With respect to these
limitations it is the examiner's position that:
If one of ordinary skill in the art of roof renewal,
were to take away the conduits of Whitman, one would
expect the same results as in amended claim 1.
Furthermore, figure 3 of Whitman shows that
substantially all of the quantity of air forced into
the roof system passes directly into the roof system
at a location in the roof system immediately
adjacent the exhaust port seal. Therefore the
features of "substantially free of conduits" and
"substantially all of the air passes directly to the
roof system" are anticipated by Whitman. (Answer,
page 6).
We are at a loss to understand the examiner's position.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007