Appeal 2007-0305
Application 10/067,186
Appellants contend that “the filter bags disclosed in Giannetta [ ] are
comprised of a support layer bonded to one side of a porous expanded
polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) layer and a protective surface pattern or
screen material bonded to the other side of the ePTFE membrane . . . [which]
protects the ePTFE layer against damage due to the impingement of
collected particles” (Br. 4), in contrast, “[t]he instant disposable filtration
bag is made to be used only one time” (id. at 5), and “has no such protective
surface or screen material” (id. at 4). Appellants argue that “it is undesirable
to have a layer of screen material in a disposable filtration bag . . . since such
a layer would make the filtration bag more bulky and less desirable to
consumers” (id. at 4-5), and the inclusion of a screen layer “clearly shows”
that Giannetta’s filtration bag “is not disposable” (id. at 5).
The issue raised by this appeal, then, is whether the claimed invention
is distinguishable over Giannetta. Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us
that it is.
During examination, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d
1359, 1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “An essential purpose
of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and
unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed,
as much as possible, during the administrative process.” In re Zletz, 893
F.2d 319, 322, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Appellants have not identified any element of Claim 1 which
distinguishes the claimed composite filtration bags from Giannetta’s bags.
As pointed out by the Examiner, claim 1 is drafted using open transitional
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013