Appeal 2007-0380
Reexamination Control 90/007,199
Patent 6,394,644 B1
Claim 154
Regarding claim 15, Streiff argues that the crossbars of Duke “are
arranged in planes that intersect at a point within a rib 5 and not in the
transverse plane of the edge of the ring ….” (Brief 16). Streiff’s argument
hinges on whether claim 15 precludes a construction where the crossbars
attach to one another to form the rib as shown in Duke Figure 1. For reasons
stated above, when we give the claim terms their broadest reasonable
construction, we conclude that such a construction is not precluded. Thus,
Streiff’s argument as to claim 15 fails.
Claim 175
Regarding claim 17, Streiff argues that the mixing plates 2 of Duke
while being in contact, are not “mated”. Streiff does not point to a definition
of the term “mated” in its Specification but instead directs us to a dictionary
definition of the term “mate”. Unfortunately, Streiff does not explain how
the definition of “mate” precludes the construction shown in figure 4 of
Duke. We note, for instance, that to mate, according to the dictionary
definition provided, may mean “to join together” or “to provide a mate.” (Br.
17). Duke teaches an embodiment where mixing plates, after being placed
on top of one another, may be welded together. (Duke 3). Streiff does not
explain why these mixing plates would not be considered to be “mated.”
4 Streiff states that claims 16-20 are not anticipated by Duke “for the
same reasons expressed with respect to claim 15”. Nonetheless, we consider,
below, Streiff’s separate arguments as to claim 17. (Br. 17).
5 Streiff states that claim 18 is not anticipated by Duke “for the reasons
expressed above with respect to claim 17”. (Br. 16).
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013