Appeal No. 2006-1908 Page 3
Application No. 10/371,161
consideration of the record before us, Bacon anticipates the subject matter recited
in claims 1-3 and 9-11.
In the rejection of independent claim 1, the examiner has determined that
Bacon discloses a product delivery chute assembly that includes a chute (102, 103)
having a plurality of troughs (101) extending down the sidewall of the chute and
along which batches travel after being delivered to the chute by a weigher (W). In
particular, the examiner contends that the storage cups (101) disclosed in Bacon
anticipate the claim limitation of a plurality of troughs. (Examiner’s Answer, p. 5).
The appellant contends that storage cups of Bacon are not the claimed
troughs. The appellant argues that the term “trough” is defined as an elongated
structure and that Bacon’s storage cups are short squat areas and are not elongated
and do not extend along a sidewall such that batches travel along them after being
delivered thereto by the weigher. (Appellant’s Brief, pp. 4-5).
The examiner argues in response that the storage cups of Bacon have walls
that project inwardly with respect to the central axis of the chute (102) and extend
along the sidewall of the chute (102). The examiner notes that the claims do not
define a particular limitation with regard to the length of the troughs beyond that
they must extend along the sidewall, and the specification does not define the
particular length of the troughs. (Examiner’s Answer, pp. 7-8).
We agree with the examiner’s position.
We first construe the meaning of the word “troughs” as used by the appellant
in the claims. We determine the scope of the claims in patent applications “not
solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007