Appeal No. 2001-1484
Application 09/092,368
or clearing of the compressor appears to satisfy the claim
language of “not effectively” compressing fluid when rotated in
one direction. Also, we note that if the functional language
“which does not effectively compress fluid when rotated in one
direction” as it appears in line 3 of claim 1 refer to the
previously recited pump unit as a whole with its entire structure
such as a motor and valving, then it would appear that the
claimed subject matter lacks novelty over Smith.
Some other problems with claims 1-10 are as follows: Clause
(c) of claim 1 refers to “said first direction.” No first
direction has been recited. Presumably this should refer to “said
one direction.” Claim 2, line 1 refers to “said sealed
compression shell.” No sealed compression shell has been
previously recited. Presumably, this refers to the sealed
compressor shell of claim 1.
All words in a claim must be considered in judging the
patentability of that claim against the prior art. If no
reasonably definite meaning can be ascribed to certain terms in
the claim, the subject matter does not become obvious--the claim
becomes indefinite. In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385, 165 USPQ
494, 496 (CCPA 1970). Our analysis of the claims indicates that
considerable speculation as to meaning of the terms employed and
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007