Appeal No. 1998-1435 Page 7
Application No. 08/132,584
teachings of the prior art so that the claimed invention is
rendered obvious.” Id. at 1266, 23 USPQ2d at 1784, (citing In
re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 987, 18 USPQ2d 1885, 1888 (Fed. Cir.
1991)).
Here, although Halley teaches heating air, the air is not
heated before it is pressurized. To the contrary, the
examiner admits that the reference heats the air after it has
been pressurized. He specifically admits, "[i]n Halley, Figs.
l and 2, an elongated air delivery tube (B) deliveries
pressured air to the plenum chamber through inlet ports 6b and
the heating elements 7 are contained in the inner airflow
passage (C) for heating air discharged through ports 3a."
(Examiner's Answer at 5 (emphasis added).) For its part, the
reference teaches heating air that has already been
compressed. Specifically, "three electrical resistance
elements 7 ... are adapted to heat the compressed air passing
through the plenum chamber C." Col. 1, l. 70 - col. 2, l. 1. 2
2We see no inconsistency between this conclusion and the
rule that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) should
give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation during
prosecution. “The operative word is reasonable: the PTO has
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007