Appeal No. 2001-1484
Application 09/092,368
paragraph, and we cannot compare the claimed subject matter
therein to the prior art in any meaningful way. Consequently, we
reverse the rejection of claims 1-7, and enter a new rejection of
claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, pursuant to
our authority under 37 CFR § 1.196(b). Additionally, we reverse
the prior art rejection of claims 11 and 12. A detailed
explanation follows.
Our initial problem with the interpretation of claim 1
concerns how to construe the term “compression element” as it
appears in the third line of claim 1. The specification does not
use this language.
Additionally, we are unable to ascertain whether the
functional language “which does not effectively compress fluid
when rotated in one direction” as it appears in line 3 of claim 1
refers to the previously recited “pump unit” or the previously
recited “compression element.” We note that a movable scroll
alone cannot compress fluid. Yet if the functional language
refers to the compression element, the compression element is
rotated--which the fixed scroll is not. Thus, we are unable to
determine if “compression element” refers to the orbiting scroll
alone or both the fixed and orbiting scrolls together. If the
compression element refers to the structure that actually
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007