Appeal No. 96-4041
Application 08/264,704
fitting member 27, Trammell’s fitting 27 and conduit 34
collectively may then be read on the final claim limitation
calling for a "conduit means"
sealingly engaged in the second opening since Trammell’s
fitting 27 and hose 34 are sealingly engaged in the opening
via flange 26 and fitting member 29, and since fitting 27 and
hose 34 are fully capable of directly communicating a vacuum
force to the interior of the enclosure means for removing
waste gases therefrom. Accordingly, when Trammell is viewed
in this light, there is no need to resort to Poppendiek for a
teaching of providing a conduit means in the second opening of
Trammell.
To the extent appellant argues that the sixth paragraph
of 35 U.S.C. § 112 requires interpreting the "first opening
means" and "conduit means" limitations of claim 1 in a manner
that distinguishes over Trammel’s opening 34 and conduit means
27, 34, respectively, the argument is not well taken. It is
debatable whether the "first opening means" and "conduit
means" recitations are linked to the functional language that
follow in a manner that triggers the 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007