Appeal No. 2001-2073
Application No. 09/098,799
Thus, we consider that one skilled in the art would understand
the language "through said central axis" as being more
appropriately --along said central axis--. Although, since the
central axis of the hollow housing or tool shaft (36) or (100) is
an imaginary line, there is no reason why the fluid flowing
through the hollow shaft of the tool could not also be broadly
considered to flow "through" the central axis.
As for the examiner's concern regarding claim 6 on appeal,
we are of the view that our discussions above in treating the
rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
should put the examiner's concerns to rest. Clearly the
plurality of holes in the permeable cap are in addition to the
aperture at the distal end of the hollow shaft of the tool.
Looking to claim 13 and the examiner's rejection thereof
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, we note that the
examiner's position (answer, page 6) is that claim 13 is "vague
and indefinite because it is unclear what the means for diffusing
is with respect to all the different embodiments." The examiner
opines that "[i]t appears that only figure 3-4 [sic] have a
diffuser." After careful consideration, we agree with
88
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007