Appeal No. 2004-1692
Application No. 09/871,863
OPINION
The examiner finds that Heilmann discloses a dialyzer inlet
header comprising a body, an inlet channel (28) providing fluid
communication to the interior of the dialyzer and defining a flow
path axial to the fiber bundle, and a member modifying the fluid
flow as the fluid exits the inlet channel, where the member
includes a curved vane extending from the body as required by
claim 1 on appeal, a plurality of curved vanes imparting a circular
motion to the fluid as required by claim 21 on appeal (item 50 in
Figure 2), and a body with two ends, a fiber bundle, a blood inlet,
and a member integral and in juxtaposition to the blood inlet
causing blood to flow to the perimeter of the fiber bundle as
required by claim 12 on appeal (Answer, page 3). Accordingly,
the examiner finds that every element of the claims on appeal is
described by Heilmann within the meaning of section 102(b)(Answer,
page 5).
In our analysis of the examiner’s rejection based on section
102(b), we must first correctly construe the claim to define the
scope and meaning of any contested limitation. See Gechter v.
Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1457, 43 USPQ2d 1030, 1032 (Fed. Cir.
1997). Appellants’ principal argument is that Heilmann requires
the use of a plate (46) in combination with guide ribs (50) in
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007