Appeal No. 2003-1141
Application 09/572,745
that this rotational member is not disposed as required by the
claim limitations in question. The following passage from the
reply brief fairly summarizes the appellants’ point:
in Muhlhoff the rotational section 37 is disposed
between the reducer 5 and the rotor 9. In contrast,
each of independent claims [1 and 10] requires a
rotational member disposed between the inlet port and
the exhaust means . . . or between the inlet port and
the rotor . . . .
The foregoing patentable distinction between
claims [1 and 10] and Muhlhoff concerning the location
of the rotational member is significant because of the
negative effect that the reducer 5 has on the operation
of Muhlhoff’s friction vacuum pump. More specifically,
as noted in the main brief (pgs. 11-12), in Muhlhoff’s
friction vacuum pump, the flow of gas molecules taken
in through the inlet port is interrupted in a dead
space defined by the reducer 5 where the rotor section
37 is not located. As a result, the amount of gas
molecules entering the webs 39 and flowing around the
outer surface of the rotor 9 is decreased, thereby
decreasing the exhaust efficiency of the friction
vacuum pump [pages 3 and 4].
The appellants’ position here is not well taken. To begin
with, the record is devoid of any evidence supporting the
assertion by the appellants that Muhlhoff’s reducer 5 produces a
“dead space” which interrupts the flow of gas molecules taken in
through the pump’s inlet port at the top of the reducer.
Moreover, claims 1 and 10 do not include any limitation which
excludes, or is otherwise inconsistent with, Muhlhoff’s reducer 5
and any dead space which may be associated therewith. The argued
limitations merely call for the rotational member to be disposed
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007