Appeal 2006-2438
Application 09/259,306
In this regard, the Examiner maintains (Supplemental Answer 4-5)
that:
Additionally, the limitation in claims 4 and 15, disclosing
valves are composed of a valve seat part so that the valve seat is
pressed against the associated inlet or outlet by the beams being
resiliently deformed has not been accorded patentable weight.
Process limitations are not accorded patentable weigh[t] in a
claim drawn to an apparatus. In other words the text of the
claims (as presently drafted) directed to the movement of the
elements are considered to be process limitation[s]. In order for
the operational function to be considered as apparatus
limitations the claims should be amended to incorporate means
plus function language.
The components[,] such as the seat part 20 and beams 418,
419 [of the] device of Van Lintel[,] inherently function as
claimed by applicant.
While we agree with the Examiner that an intended use or process
limitation in an apparatus claim may be entitled to little weight in some
cases, we disagree with the Examiner’s viewpoint here with respect to
several claim limitations. Appealed claim 4 requires that the valves are
molded integrally with the liquid feed chamber using silicon processing and
that “… each of said valves is composed of a valve seat part and resiliently
deformable beams integrally incorporated with the valve seat part so that the
valve seat part is pressed against the associated inlet or outlet port by a force
exerted by the beams resiliently deformed….” See Appealed claim 4.
We regard that claim language as requiring that the deformable beams
are arranged relative to an associated valve seat part and the associated
liquid feed chamber port, as an integrally molded structure. Thus, the use of
glue for combining the ring shaped structure (418) with plate (6) as
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007