Appeal 2006-1521
Application 09/815,877
ports” wherein the flexible sides of the “sleeve-like construction” would
presumably meet to close the inlet port (Br. 5, 7).
Appellants also indicate that Dickerhoff fails to provide any
illustration or description of how the “snaps” would be used to close the inlet
port (Br. 5). Appellants argue that, because no illustration or description is
provided concerning how the “snaps” close the inlet port, Dickerhoff does
not enable a person to make or use the invention of claims 34, 35, and 54
(Br. 6). Specifically, Appellants contend that Dickerhoff does not disclose
how to form the closure mechanism using his disclosed “snaps” much less
Appellants’ claimed “plug” (Br. 6).
Appellants lastly argue that a “snap is not a plug in structure or
operation” (Br. 6). In this regard, Appellants argue that a “snap” lacks
“‘placing’ and ‘retaining’ or ‘removably receiving’ a ‘plug’ in an inlet port”
as is required by the appealed claims (Br. 6).
We agree with Appellants’ ultimate determination that the § 102(b)
rejection cannot be sustained.
The Examiner’s only rebuttal to Appellants’ myriad arguments is that
Dickerhoff’s “snap does in fact meet the dictionary meaning of the word
plug especially in view of how the snap is used in the Dickerhoff reference”
(Answer 4). The Examiner’s position appears to be that when Dickerhoff’s
snap closes an inlet port the snap fills a hole (i.e., the inlet port) and thereby
meets the definition of “plug” provided by Appellants (Answer 4). We
cannot agree with the Examiner.
Claim 34 explicitly requires the method of controlling airflow to
include “placing the plug in an inlet port and retaining the plug in the inlet
port” (emphasis added). Claim 35 requires “a plug removably received in at
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007