Ex Parte Fukuda et al - Page 3




         Appeal No.  2004-2176                                                      
         Application No. 09/996,624                                                 

         position compresses the film against the chute.  Appellants argue          
         that there is no statement in Fukuda that the air cylinder 78 functions    
         to control the compressive force between the belt 55 and the film          
         “S.”                                                                       
              Beginning on page 4 of the answer, the examiner rebuts and states     
         that air cylinder 78 of Fukuda effectively moves the vertical sealing      
         belt 55 in order to seal the web by direct contact, and the examiner       
         then concludes that the compressive force is thereby controlled by         
         air cylinder 78.   We agree.  We note that during patent examination,      
         the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms           
         reasonably allow.  In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 320,          
         322 (Fed. Cir. 1999).  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).  In the instant case, claim 1 recites, inter alia, “an           
         air cylinder for controlling compressive force with which said heater      
         unit at said sealing position compresses such film against said chute      
         by having air of a specified pressure supplied thereto.”   Applying        
         any desired amount of force (which air cylinder 78 of Fukuda provides)     
         satisfies the meaning of “controlling compressive force.”  Fukuda’s        
         air cylinder 78 provides such function.                                    
              In any event, and more importantly, as pointed out by the             
         examiner on page 5 of the answer, apparatus claims must be                 
         distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure, rather than        
         function.  See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1474-77, 44 USPQ2d          
         1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).  On this record, however, there is         
         no evidence that the claimed air cylinder is structurally different        
         from that described in Fukuda.  In the absence of such evidence (which     
         appellants have not provided in the record before us), we affirm           
         the rejection.                                                             
              Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1, 4          
                                        -3-                                         





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007