Appeal No. 2005-1035
Application No. 09/800,153
its length, as suggested by applicant” (Answer, page 9).
As previously indicated, the Appellant and the Examiner both
interpret appealed claim 1 as requiring a fluid injection device.
This interpretation is erroneous. Pursuant to its express
language, claim 1 is directed to
A system for distributing pesticide into
interior walls of a building comprising a port
mounted in an exterior wall of the building,
said port being adapted to receive a discharge
portion of a fluid injection device wherein the
injection device includes an inert gas inlet,
a pesticide inlet, and valve means for
selectively providing inert gas and pesticide
to the discharge portion [emphasis added].
Significantly, this quoted recitation concerning a fluid injection
device is in relation to the here claimed port “being adapted to
receive” such a device. That is, claim 1 requires not merely a
port of any kind but rather a port which is capable of receiving
the discharge portion of a particular type of fluid injection
device (i.e., an injection device which includes an inert gas
inlet, a pesticide inlet, and a valve means for selectively
providing inert gas and pesticide to the discharge portion).
However, claim 1 plainly does not contain any language which
requires the fluid injection device itself to be part of the here
claimed "system for distributing pesticide into interior walls of a
building.” Thus, because of the way in which it has been drafted,
claim 1 must be interpreted as drawn to the subcombination of a
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007