Appeal No. 2005-2176 Page 5
Application No. 10/266,229
housing.2 In this regard, we note that claim 1 does not require that the pump housing
be a unitary (one-piece) housing.3
We appreciate that Reighard does not use the term “pump housing” to describe
the manifold block 17 but we are also mindful that a reference does not fail as an
anticipation merely because it does not contain a description of the subject matter of the
appealed claim in ipsissimis verbis. In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 1090, 197 USPQ 601,
607 (CCPA 1978).
For the foregoing reasons, we agree with the examiner that claim 1 is anticipated
by Reighard. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 1, as well as dependent claims 2-4
which the appellant states stand or fall together with claim 1 (brief, page 3), as being
anticipated by Reighard is sustained.
The rejection of claims 5-9 as being anticipated by Reighard, on the other hand,
is not sustained. Independent claim 5, from which claims 6-9 depend and which is
directed to a hot melt adhesive dispensing unit, recites, inter alia, a manifold having an
inlet and an outlet, a pump coupled to said manifold outlet for pumping liquid adhesive
through said manifold, said pump including a pump inlet and outlet and a chamber
2 The appellant implies on page 3 of the reply brief that the examiner has "[twisted] clear claim
terminology outside of a scope recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art," but we find nothing in the
record which establishes an art-recognized definition of pump housing which is inconsistent with or
repugnant to that applied by the examiner in reading the claimed pump housing as including Reighard's
manifold block 17.
3 Limitations are not to be read into the claims from the specification. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d
1181, 1184, 26 USPQ2d 1057, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1993) citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d
1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007