Appeal No. 2001-2187
Application No. 09/333,356
taking into account any definitions presented in the
specification. In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571, 222 USPQ 934,
936 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Second, it is clear that the meaning of the
words “chute” and “bushing” will prove important in rendering our
decision.
Appellants urge that their baffle unit, as claimed is located
within the chute, and not below the flow passage (i.e, their
baffle unit is not within the bushing assembly, as taught by
Coggin). (Appeal Brief, page 6, lines 4-5). Consequently, in
essence they are urging that the chute must be part of the walled
melting receptacle, which is not part of the bushing.
We find that the specification (see especially page 10, lines
11-24 and figures 1 and 2) states that there is a flow-regulating
system 200 between the bushing 400 and the glass-melting furnace.
The system comprises a narrowing area between the furnace melting
region and the bushing such that the glass flows in to a funnel
shaped liner or chute 201. The bushing 400 is illustrated in the
figures as more than simply the orifice plate.
We conclude that the appellants’ specification therefore
defines the “bushing” as the portion of the claimed apparatus
below the chute (which chute goes through the refractory); as
depicted by arrow 400 in figure 1 (see also specification,
paragraph spanning pages 11-12). The bushing necessarily includes
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007