Appeal No. 2003-2114
Application No. 09/757,430
requiring the two air paths to be separate from the first air
path. We disagree with this interpretation afforded claim 14.
Claim 14 conveys adequately to one of ordinary skill in the art
what it covers, when viewed in the light of binding precedent.
Indeed, in Crystal Semiconductor Corp. v. TriTech Microelectronics
Intern., Inc., 246 F.3d 1336, 1347, 57 U.S.P.Q.2d 1953, 1958 (Fed.
Cir. 2001) the Federal Circuit noted that:
This court has consistently emphasized that the indefinite
articles "a" or "an," when used in a patent claim, mean "one
or more" in claims containing open-ended transitional phrases
such as "comprising." KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc.,
223 F.3d 1351, 1356, 55 USPQ2d 1835, 1839 (Fed.Cir.2000); see
Elkay Mfg. Co. v. Ebco Mfg. Co., 192 F.3d 973, 977, 52 USPQ2d
1109, 1112 (Fed.Cir.1999); Abtox, Inc. v. Exitron Corp., 122
F.3d 1019, 1023, 43 USPQ2d 1545, 1548 (Fed.Cir.1997). "Under
this conventional rule, the claim limitation 'a,' without
more, requires at least one." KCJ Corp at 1356 (emphasis
added).
This is on point with the present instance. Claim 14 does not
specifically require three air paths, it only requires two.
Likewise we disagree with the examiner’s interpretation of claim
14 as requiring two, if not three blow-off vents (Examiner’s
Answer, page 6, lines 3-8). Consequently we shall reverse this
rejection as it is founded on an incorrect claim interpretation.
The Rejection of Claim 17 Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b)
The examiner has found that Pawlowski discloses all of the
claimed features of the invention. (Examiner’s Answer, page 4,
19, 21 and 22. (Examiner’s Answer, page 5, last two lines).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007