Appeal No. 2004-1692
Application No. 09/871,863
order to direct flow but these guide ribs extend from the plate and
not the closure cap (24) where the plate is separately connected to
the closure cap, in contrast to the curved vane that extends from a
portion of the body of the dialyzer inlet header as required by
claim 1 on appeal (Brief, page 16; Reply Brief, pages 2-3).
Appellants present similar arguments concerning the rejection of
claims 12 and 21 on appeal (Brief, pages 17-18). Accordingly,
we must ascertain the proper scope and meaning of the disputed
language in claims 1, 12 and 21. We note that, during prosecution
before the examiner, the claim language is given its broadest
reasonable meaning in its ordinary usage as it would have been
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, when read in light
of the specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44
USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Both claims 1 and 21 recite that the member (or plurality of
members) that modify the fluid flow path as it exits the inlet
channel are curved vanes that “extend” from a portion of the body.2
Appellants do not argue that the flow directing elements 50 taught
by Heilmann are not curved or cannot be considered “vanes,” and by
2Claim 1 on appeal recites “a body that is designed to be
attached to an end of a dialyzer” while claim 21 merely requires
a “body member having an inlet channel.”
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007