Appeal No. 1998-2395
Application No. 08/657,979
Appellants' main argument (Brief, pages 7-10) is directed to
the meaning of the word contiguous. All of the claims recite
that the sample container is "contiguous with" the chamber.
Appellants assert that "contiguous" means touching, not merely
nearby. Accordingly, appellants assert that Green's sample
container is not contiguous with the chamber, since the two are
separated by a length of pipe. The examiner (Answer, page 6), on
the other hand, relies on the dictionary definition of "nearby:
adjacent" for the position that the claimed contiguous
relationship covers the structure shown in Green.
We agree with appellants. Although the definition used by
the examiner does not require actual contact between the two
elements, any separation between them must still be minimal. The
dictionary does not merely say "nearby," it reads, "nearby:
adjacent." The word adjacent implies a much closer relationship
than just "nearby." The elbow pipe of Green that connects
cylinder 15 with the sample container 16 is more than a nominal
separation. Accordingly, Green's elements cannot be considered
contiguous.1
1 We note that Skállen forms measure chamber 35 contiguous with hole 11
and states that sample chamber 9 and hole 11 are formed as a continuous
chamber because "dead spaces ... can give rise to collections of fibers from
different samplings" (see column 2, lines 41-44). Thus, Skállen implies that
connections (such as the elbow pipe of Green) are unwanted collection points.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007