Appeal 2006-1326
Application 09/919,326
Examiner determines that “one of ordinary skill in the art would consider the
amount of Hayashi’s deformation as a ‘small’ amount” (Answer 8).
Appellants respond that Hayashi does not disclose deforming the
sealing surface of the rubber plug 3 a “small amount” (Reply Br. 2). Rather,
Appellants contend that Hayashi demonstrates in Figure 1 that the rubber
plug 3 needs to deform “about .250 inches or about 18%,” which Appellants
determine is not a “small amount” (Reply Br. 2). Moreover, Appellants
reiterate their previous argument that Hayashi’s disclosure that R2 is “much
larger” than R1 in Figure 1 indicates that the deformation required to insert
Hayashi’s rubber plug 3 into seal cylinder 1 is not a “small amount” (Reply
Br. 2).
We agree with the Examiner’s ultimate finding that claims 5, 7-11,
and 13-16 are anticipated by Hayashi.
As an initial matter, we note that Appellants have not defined the
claim terms “substantially” or “small amount” in their Specification. Rather,
the only indication as to the meaning of these claim terms is provided by the
function performed by the features these terms modify, namely, the sealing
surface and the skirt of the device. From the very language of the claims,
the sealing surface must be “substantially the same shape” and the skirt must
deform “only a small amount” so that a seal is formed “between the sealing
surface and the interior surface of the cavity.” Accordingly, we determine
that the claim terms “substantially” and “small amount” require a seal be
formed between the sealing surface and the interior surface of the cavity in
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013