Appeal 2006-2022
Application 10/092,320
Appellants counter the Examiner’s statements by reiterating the
arguments made in their Brief (Reply Br. 3-7). Appellants add that the
“Examiner’s definition [of periphery], while not necessarily incorrect, is
inappropriately restrictive” (Reply Br. 2). Appellants cite to three websites
that define periphery as “the outermost part or region within a precise
boundary,” “the outward bounds of something as distinguished from its
internal regions or center” or “the area around the edge of a place,”
respectively (Reply Br. 2). 1 Based on these definitions, Appellants contend
they are entitled to the broadest reasonable interpretation a person of
ordinary skill in the pertinent art would give to the chosen claim language
(Reply Br. 3).
Applying their definitions of “periphery” to the prior art used to reject
their claims, Appellants contend that Yamamoto and Hein indicate that the
“outermost part or region [of the diaphragm]” or “the outward bounds [of
the diaphragm] as distinguished from its internal regions or center” or “the
area around the edge of [the diaphragm]” is not free to move between the
upper and lower orifice plates as required by Appellants’ claims (Reply
Br. 3).
We agree with Appellants’ ultimate position that the § 103 rejection
over Yamamoto in view of Hein cannot be sustained.
1Appellants’ dictionary citations were provided from the following websites:1
(1) http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=periphery; (2) http://www.m-
w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va-periphery; (3)
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DiectionaryResults.aspx?r
efid=1861725079.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007