Appeal No. 2004-2193 Page 3
Application No. 09/737,781
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The objective of the appellants’ invention is to provide an air filter assembly for
an apparatus for cutting vegetation which is less prone than prior art filters to clog with
debris during use. In furtherance of this goal, the invention comprises, inter alia, an air
filter having an intake that, in the language of independent claim 5, “generally faces
away” from the front end of the apparatus and “is positioned downwardly.” These
limitations also are present in independent apparatus claim 1 (“positioned downwardly
with respect to a plane normal to said forward direction of travel” of the apparatus) and
independent method claim 8 (“said filtering air intake being positioned downwardly . . .
[and] generally faces away from said front end” of the apparatus).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007