Appeal No. 2005-1833 Page 4
Application No. 10/338,337
consulted by this panel and is clearly the meaning intended by the appellants, as
evidenced in their reply brief. Furthermore, the examiner has cited no authority for a
different definition. Accordingly, we interpret “monolithic” as used in appellants’ claim
23 as “cast as a single piece.”
The limitation at issue in claim 23 does not set aside the first and second pump
chamber from the connector cap in any manner which would imply that only the first and
second pump chambers, and not the connector cap, are modified by the phrase “that
are connected together as one monolithic piece.”2 This is in contrast to the limitation
“the first and second pump chambers being positioned side by side,” in which the
language makes clear that only the first and second pump chambers, and not the
connector cap, are required to be positioned side by side.
It is quite apparent from each of Figures 2-4 of Castner3 and for the reasons cited
by the appellants on pages 10-11 of their brief that the cap member 20, 20N, 20O is
formed as a separate piece from the tubes 21, 22 or 21N, 22N or 21O, 22O and not as one
monolithic piece therewith, as called for in claim 23. Consequently, the examiner’s
anticipation rejection must fall. The rejection of claim 23 and claims 24-27, 30 and 32
depending therefrom as being anticipated by Castner is not sustained.
2 On the other hand, a limitation such as “a pump housing having a connector cap, a first pump
chamber, and a second pump chamber, the first and second pump chambers being connected together as
one monolithic piece” would convey that only the first and second pump chambers are required to be
connected together as one monolithic piece.
3 As pointed out by the appellants, the solid lines separating these parts and the distinct
sectioning of these respective parts in Figures 2-4 indicates that the connector cap and tubes are
separately formed members.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007