Appeal No. 2001-0550
Application No. 09/030,792
claim requirement for “a source of heated solution,” the examiner
proffers the following theory as to why claim 13 does not
distinguish over Dieras:
The examiner maintains that a “heated solution” is a
relative term that requires a datum point. For
instance, a “heated solution” that has a temperature
above body temperature has a defined range. However,
the term “heated solution” by itself, does not specify
or limit the claims to any particular range of values.
A solution that is room temperature can be considered a
heated solution relative to that having a temperature
near freezing. Thus the term heated solution cannot be
held to define over the Dieras et al[.] reference and
thus Dieras et al[.] is considered to anticipate claim
13. [Answer, paragraph spanning pages 3 and 4.]
We presume that the element or elements of Dieras the
examiner is attempting to read the claim term “source of heated
solution” on is one or the other of the (unillustrated) sources
of fluid that presumably exist for supplying fluid to the lumens
37 and 14. Unlike the examiner, we do not see that either one of
these elements can be construed as “a source of heated solution”
when such language is given its broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with appellants’ specification as such
would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art (In re
Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983);
In re Tanaka, 551 F.2d 855, 860, 193 USPQ 138, 141 (CCPA 1977)).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007