Appeal No. 2005-1483 5
Application No. 90/005,947
the screen’s filtering openings. Similar to many dispute with respect to claim construction,
the devil is in the prepositions–in this instance “through.”
Following the guidance provided by our reviewing court, we look to appellants’
specification for evidence to resolve this dispute. In the specification we do not find the
specific claim language. Instead, we find the language:
the sleeve in the open position permitting fluid passage between the exterior
of the screen and the interior of the isolation pipe, ... the sleeve in the closed
position preventing fluid passage between the exterior of the screen and the
interior of the isolation pipe. Col. 1, lines 62-67.
Clearly the reference to the “exterior of the screen” restricts the cited language to flow
radially through the filtering apertures of the screen. This language is also found at col. 3,
lines 42-45; col. 3 , lines 63-67; col. 4, lines 8, 9; col. 4, lines 14-16. This language also is
found in Claim 1, a claim not under consideration here. Based on the dissimilarity of the
claim 4 language and the language from the specification that clearly refers to the exterior
of the screen, and which is clearly directed to radial flow, it seems reasonable to assume
that the language at issue from claim 4 is directed to a different and broader pattern of
flow. This appears to be the approach of the examiner in giving the claim its broadest
reasonable interpretation.
We further point out, that although claim differentiation is a less reliable guide for
claim language interpretation, the dissimilarity in language between the pattern of flow in
claim 1 and claim 4 raises the presumption that a different, presumably broader, or more
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007