Appeal No. 1999-2544 Page 24
Application No. 08/796,513
NASE, Administrative Patent Judge, dissenting-in-part.
I join in the reversal of the following rejections:
(1) claims 1 to 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
(2) claim 1 under 35 U.S.C § 102(b), and (3) claims 1 to 11,
13 and 17 to 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). I respectfully
dissent from my colleagues’ reversal of the rejections of
claim 12 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and claims 12 and 14 to 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
In my opinion, when the function of the heating means of
claim 12 (i.e., “for directly and substantially evenly heating
an outer circumferential surface of said hollow fibers” is
given its broadest reasonable interpretation,1 that function
is met Jackson. As noted by the majority above, Jackson's
water heats the fibers. It is my opinion that the function of
1 In proceedings before it, the United States Patent and Trademark
Office (USPTO) applies to the verbiage of the claims before it the broadest
reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever
enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the
written description contained in the appellant's specification. In re Morris,
127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also In re
Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007