Appeal No. 2004-2354
Application No. 09/923,991 Page 8
pointed out in In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1051, 44 USPQ2d 1023,
1029 (Fed. Cir. 1997):
Absent an express definition in their specification,
the fact that appellants can point to definitions or
usages that conform to their interpretation does not
make the [examiner’s] definition unreasonable when the
[examiner] can point to other sources that support
their interpretation.
On this record, we shall affirm the examiner’s anticipation
rejection.
§ 103(a) Rejection of claims 4 and 23 over Jordan
Appellant does not separately argue the claims subjected to
this ground of rejection. Accordingly, we select claim 4 as the
representative claim on which we decide this appeal as to this
§ 103(a) rejection.
In addition to the features of claim 1 discussed above,
representative dependent claim 4 requires that the fluid within
the claimed enclosure possesses “a viscosity between about
300,000 CPS to 6,000,000 CPS. The examiner acknowledges that
Jordan does not explicitly disclose the viscosity value (in CPS
units) of the fluid contained within the enclosure of the device
disclosed therein. However, the examiner correctly notes that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007