Appeal No. 98-2325
Application No. 08/546,116
This is a decision on an appeal from the examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1 through 7. No other claims are pending
in the application.
The claimed invention relates to a central vacuum cleaner
having a muffler (20) communicating with an exhaust air flow
pipe (14). According to claim 1, the only independent claim on
appeal, the muffler comprises a muffler pipe (30) and a foam
liner (40) disposed in the muffler pipe. Claim 1 recites that
inner surface of the liner is substantially flush with an
inlet and an outlet of the muffler pipe . Claim 1 also recites 2
that the foam liner has “a minimum length sufficient to
achieve substantial exhaust air flow noise reduction”
(emphasis added) . 3
2 Contrary to the implications of this claim limitation, the inner
peripheral surface of the annular liner is not flush with inner surfaces of
the inlet and outlet ends of the muffler pipe 30 itself. Instead, the inner
surface of the liner is described in the specification as being flush with the
inner surfaces 32e and 34e of inlet and outlet end cap tubes 32 and 34 which
are joined to the muffler pipe 30. More suitable claim language would be in
order in the event of further prosecution before the examiner.
3With regard to this limitation, we note that the word “substantial”
is a word of degree which may raise a question of indefiniteness under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Note Seattle Box Co. v. Industrial Crating &
Packing Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826, 221 USPQ 568, 574 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In
present case, however, appellants’ specification has certain guidelines for
(continued...)
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007