Appeal No. 1998-1435 Page 11
Application No. 08/132,584
fall together as a group. We select claim 31 to represent the
group. With this representation in mind, we address the
appellants' argument and the examiner's answer.
The appellants make the following argument.
As can be seen in Figure 1 of the Bird patent, the
discharge of the elements 27 and 26 is perhaps 120°
apart, and, assuming arguendo, that a "gap" is
defined therebetween in that 120°, the device 28 is,
in fact, on the opposite side of devices 26 and 27
from the "gap." To argue that a "gap" exists in the
perhaps 240° separation between the discharge of the
two devices 26 and 27 in which device 28 is located
stretches the meaning of the word too far to be
reasonable.
(Reply Br. at 2.) The examiner's answer follows.
Bird (Fig.1) teaches that the first dryer head 27
and second dryer head 26 are positioned side by side
in the press and the dryer heads are separated by
the longitudinal air gap between the heads,
discharging heated, pressurized air onto the freshly
printed sheet and extracting (vapor-extraction unit
28) the heated air from the longitudinal air gap
exposed to the heating zone.
(Examiner's Answer at 5-6.)
“In the patentability context, claims are to be given
their broadest reasonable interpretations. Moreover,
limitations are not to be read into the claims from the
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007