Appeal 2006-1326
Application 09/919,326
OPINION
Appellants separately argue the claimed device and method of using
the device. However, Appellants do not separately argue each claim of the
device or the method of use. Rather, Appellants arguments are generic to all
the independent claims of the device or method of use. Accordingly, we
choose independent claims 5 and 9 as representative claims for the device
and method of using the device, respectively.
The feature of claims 5 and 9 that is the point of contention between
the Examiner and Appellants is as follows:
. . . the sealing surface has substantially the same
shape as the interior surface of the cavity prior to
insertion into the cavity so that the skirt deforms
only a small amount to form a seal between the
sealing surface and the interior of the surface of
the cavity . . ..
The Examiner rejected claims 5, 7-11, and 13-16 under § 102(b) over
Hayashi. The Examiner found that Hayashi disclosed all the features of the
claims (Answer 3-4). Specifically, the Examiner took the position that
Hayashi “illustrates that the sealing surface has substantially the same shape
as the interior surface of the cavity” (Final Office Action 6, mailed
December 27, 2004). Moreover, the Examiner stated that “‘substantially’ is
a broad term that does not clearly define the invention” (Final Office Action
6, mailed December 27, 2004) presumably to indicate that Hayashi’s sealing
surface may be determined to be “substantially the same shape as the interior
surface of the cavity prior to insertion into the cavity.”
With regard to the device and method claims, Appellants argue
Hayashi does not disclose an arrangement where the “sealing surface has
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013