Appeal No. 2001-1772 Page 6
Application No. 09/059,699
which support all of the three blades, an arrangement that the appellant considers to be
disadvantageous because either a large number of supports must be used to achieve
adequate stability or the supports must themselves be large, both of which limit the size of
flow paths through the cartridge. From our perspective, since the appellant acknowledges
the existence of the Ferraro cartridge, it is reasonable to presume at the outset that he
intends for his claims not to read upon it.
While claim 1 does not explicitly state that the platform member is “separate” from
the spacer, it is our opinion that the language of the claim 1 is such that, when considered
in the light of the appellant’s disclosure, it should be interpreted to limit the claim to a
cartridge in which the platform member is an element separate from the spacer. This is
the interpretation that the appellant intended to be applied to the claims, as is evident from
the arguments in the Briefs. Moreover, as also is pointed out by the appellant, such an
interpretation is consistent with the manner in which these elements are presented in claim
1. In this regard, claim 1 recites “a platform member and a first blade placed on said
platform member” (emphasis added), which we agree indicates that the platform member
is a separate element, in and of itself. The claim goes on to recite “a spacer having a
base portion . . . positioned between said first blade and said second blade . . . said
spacer having at least one protrusion . . .” (emphasis added), which we agree supports the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007