Appeal No. 1997-3473
Application No. 08/331,684
invention.” Toro Co. v. White Consolidated Industries, Inc.,
____ F.3d ____, 53 USPQ2d 1065, 1067 (CAFC 1999). Thus,
although a very small portion of Kawabe’s top paddle conforms
to the shape of “aperture 16", the shape of the top paddle, as
construed in the context of the specification, is not
determined by the portion which passes through 16. Thus, the
Examiner’s number (1) proposal does not meet the language
shape which is presented in differing language in all
independent claims.
With respect to the Examiner’s number (2) proposal, that
the cavity is that volume occupied by tip 12, we also find
such a view to be contrary to the context of the
specification. This is especially so when you consider that
tip 12 is not the top paddle region, but merely overlaps part
of the top paddle region. Thus, such a cavity would not
contribute to the shape of the top paddle.
With respect to the Examiner’s number (3) proposal, that
Kawabe’s insulation layer 28 could be considered the cavity,
we again find such a view to be contrary to the context of the
specification. This is especially so since layer 28 is a
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007