Appeal No. 1998-2581
Application No. 08/472,965
thereof. See In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1193, 29 USPQ2d
1845, 1850 (Fed. Cir. 1994)(in banc).
Appellant’s specification describes the detachable
auxiliary reservoir “which seals onto the concentration chamber
by means of a conical or any other type of seal arrangement.”
Specification, page 4, ll. 18-20. Furthermore, appellant
describes the use of a pipette in the aperture and teaches “[a]
conical fit, as shown in figure 1 c, could be appropriate but
any liquid-tight fit would do.” Accordingly, we must construe
the “means for sealing” limitation of claims 1 and 2 on appeal
as including conical fits of pipettes into the aperture
provided, any other sealing arrangement that is liquid-tight, or
equivalents thereof.1
The examiner’s position apparently is that Zipilivan
discloses a circular pipette 34 which is inserted into a
circular opening 32, thus inherently providing a liquid- or gas-
tight sealing relationship (Answer, pages 4-5, citing Fig. 4 of
the reference; see the Brief, page 16). The initial burden of
1In view of our disposition of this appeal infra, we need
not construe the scope of “equivalents thereof.”
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007