Appeal No. 96-3418
Application No. 08/317,135
interpretation we find should be given to the claim language,
Neracher discloses neither a coupler nor a nipple. In
addition, however, claims 13 and 14 each recite a filter which
includes a lip that engages a shoulder. The examiner is of
the view that the outer annular portion of each of the flat
Neracher screens constitutes a lip. We do not agree. In our
opinion, the portion to which the examiner refers is an edge
and not a lip, because it lies in the plane of the screen,
whereas a lip, in the context of this invention, would project
therefrom at an angle. 3
The rejection of independent claims 13 and 14, and
dependent claims 16 and 17, will not be sustained.
The Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The first of these is that claims 2, 3, 5 and 6 are
unpatentable over Neracher. These claims add details of the
filter to independent claims 1 and 4. We have pointed out
above the deficiencies in Neracher insofar as the structure
recited in claims 1 and 4 is concerned. These are not
overcome by considering the reference in the light of Section
3See Merriam Webster’s, supra, page 679.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007