Appeal No. 2000-0895
Application No. 08/754,797
repeatedly cautioned against employing hindsight by using the
appellant's disclosure as a blueprint to reconstruct the
claimed invention from the isolated teachings of the prior
art. See, e.g., Grain Processing Corp. v. American
Maize-Products Co., 840 F.2d 902, 907, 5 USPQ2d 1788, 1792
(Fed. Cir. 1988).
Each of the independent claims calls for, inter alia, an
element or tube of filtering material having an axis, a liquid
porous side wall and a “porosity” of about 10-120 microns; a1
cap for closing a bottle neck having first and second
substantially opposite surfaces; a manual valve connected to
or cooperatively associated with the cap; and the filter
element or tube operatively engaging the cap second surface.
Each of the independent claims also requires that the flow of
liquid through the element or tube be primarily radial with
respect to the element or tube axis during filtering.
In construing the appealed claims, it is our understanding that the1
term “porosity” actually refers to pore size, since “porosity” is typically
defined as the ratio of pore volume to bulk volume and is not stated in units
of length. See, e.g., Van Vlack, Elements of Material Science 381(1964) (copy
attached). The appellants’ erroneous use of the term “porosity,” rather than
pore size, is worthy of correction upon return of the application to the
jurisdiction of the examiner.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007