Appeal 2007-0380
Reexamination Control 90/007,199
Patent 6,394,644 B1
the end grating 4 and the “ring” 2 as showing that the rib of Duke “do[es]
not consist entirely of portions of crossbars 4…”
Streiff would have us construe the limitation “crossbar” in such a way
that it cannot be part of the rib 5 of Duke. However, Streiff has directed us
to nothing in its claim language or Specification that would compel such a
construction. Instead we give the term its broadest reasonable interpretation
which we conclude, allows for the crossbars to form a rib by the attachment
of each crossbar to the end point of an adjacent crossbar.
We are not persuaded by Streiff’s argument that the rib 5 in Duke
cannot be formed entirely of crossbars. When we give claim 1 its broadest
reasonable construction, we see nothing in the claim that precludes the
crossbars from attaching as shown in Figures 1 and 2 of Duke. As noted by
the Examiner, Duke states that “…passageways 3 are provided in the gaps
between bars 4 and produce, in each mixing plate 2, shaped angled cavities
6, which are designed in such a way that one transverse rib 5 is produced
between them….” (Answer 19-20; Duke 3). In Duke, it is crossbars 4,
attached at end points of adjacent crossbars, that produce the rib 5. To the
extent it is Streiff’s argument that some portion of the Duke rib does not
make up “crossbars”, we note that the claim language does not exclude that
portion of the rib.
Streiff notes that the ribs of Duke, as shown in the figures, extend
across the flow path and “reduce the free cross-section for a flow of
material”. Streiff argues that the crossbars of its structure do not reduce the
flow path and allow for the use of thinner materials. (Brief 15-16).
However, as Streiff does not explain how its claims exclude the embodiment
shown in the figures of Duke, we do not see how this argument is relevant.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013