Appeal No. 2004-0516
Application No. 09/578,072
The examiner relies upon the following references as
evidence of unpatentability:
Higby 2,317,057 Apr. 20, 1943
Smith et al. (Smith) 2,606,019 Aug. 05, 1952
Gouirand (‘651) 3,000,651 Sep. 19, 1961
Gouirand (‘325) 3,692,325 Sep. 19, 1972
VanDenberg 5,746,441 May 05, 1998
OPINION
For the reasons discussed below, we reverse the
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection. We affirm the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 rejection of claims 1-6, 9, and 12-16. We affirm the
35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 7 and 8. We reverse the
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 10 and 11.
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1 and 16
On pages 4-5 of the brief, appellant argues, inter
alia, that Gouirand ‘651 does not disclose a bladder as
required by the claims. In response, on page 5 of the
answer, the examiner states that the dictionary definition
of “bladder” is quite broad and that casing 2 having
diaphragm 3, of Gouirand ‘651, meets the definition of
“bladder.”
We note that the meaning and scope of claim 1 is
ascertained in light of the specification. That is, in
determining the patentability of claims, the PTO gives
claim language its “broadest reasonable interpretation”
consistent with the specification and claims. In re
Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed.
Cir. 1997) (citations omitted).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007