Appeal 2006-2026
Application 10/300,334
Catalina supports their position that features highlighted in the specification
cannot be ignored (Reply Br. 2).
Appellants further argue that the Examiner’s definition of “spout” as
“a fluid conduit” in the Answer ignores the disclosure in the Specification
where Appellants repeatedly define “spout” as “an upstanding pipe
transitioning into a downwardly oriented outlet” (Reply Br. 2). Appellants
conclude that “spout” as recited in claim 16 is more than merely “a fluid
conduit” (Reply Br. 2).
We cannot sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims 16, 18,
and 22 over Zastawny in view of Burke.
The Examiner equates Zastawny’s and Burke’s pipes 13 and G,
respectively with Appellants’ “spouts” (Answer 4-5). The Examiner
contends that a “spout” is merely “a fluid conduit” (Answer 8). We cannot
agree.
We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument that a “spout” must have a
discharging outlet (Reply Br. 2). Appellants’ disclosure demonstrates that a
“spout” acts to convey fluid to an outlet for discharge (Appellants’ Figure 1,
reference numeral 26; Specification 6, ll. 17-19; 10, ll. 15-17; 11, ll. 18-19).
In view of Appellants’ arguments and their disclosure in the Specification, it
is not reasonable for the Examiner to interpret Zastawny’s pipe 13 or
Burke’s pipe G as “spouts” because neither reference discloses discharge of
the fluid being conveyed. Phillips v. AWH Corporation, 415 F.3d 1303,
1314-15, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (explaining that among
other sources, the specification is used to construe claim language). Rather,
Zastawny discloses a pipe coupling for water-distribution pipelines and
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007