Appeal No. 2000-0075
Application 08/969,941
The last clause of independent claim 54 includes similar
language to that in the last clause of claim 1 regarding “said
third means.”
Our problem with the language highlighted above in the
last clause of claims 1 and 54 is that it appears to be
inconsistent with the invention as described in appellants’
specification. On page 20 of the specification, a portion of
the fourth means at the third station is described as
including an upper chamber (154), seen in Figures 14 and 16,
that is supplied with the same gas under pressure that is
supplied to the canister, which gas acts on the head section
(153) of piston member (151) to apply an additional force on
the piston member, enhancing the force applied by spring (161)
and thereby urging the end of piston rod section (152) into
greater sealing engagement with the canister being charged.
Thus, it appears that the reference to “said third means” in
the last clause of both claims 1 and 54 on appeal is in error
and results in these claims, and the claims which depend
therefrom, actually defining something other than that which
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007