Appeal No. 2000-0496
Serial No. 08/795,626
containing a welding fume passage having toothed ruggedness (14),
a filter (4) and a fan (5) (page 6; figure 1(a)).
The appellants’ specification does not discuss the
limitation “generally air-tight when in a closed configuration”
in claim 10.4 However, because the appellants’ polluted air
input device (cone hood 12 and flexible hose 14) appears to be
comparable to that of JP ‘212 (suction nozzle 1 and hose 2), and
the appellants’ cleaned gas outlet device (vents 44) appears to
be comparable to that of JP ‘212 (silencer 6 through which the
cleaned gas passes out of the housing as shown in figure 1(a)),
it reasonably appears that the JP ‘212 housing is “generally air-
tight when in a closed configuration” as that phrase is used by
the appellants. Moreover, the disclosure that the JP ‘212
housing collects pollutants (pages 5-6) would have led one of
ordinary skill in the art to make the housing generally air-tight
when closed to better contain the pollutants.
The JP ‘212 housing has a generally non-obstructed linear
flow path for incoming pollutant-containing air until filtration
thereof is initiated in the welding fume passage having toothed
4 In the event of further prosecution, the examiner and the
appellants should address on the record whether the appellants’
original specification provides adequate written descriptive
support for “generally air-tight when in a closed configuration”
in claim 10.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007