Appeal 2007-0494
Application 10/447,446
the ‘essentially continuous [purge gas] outlet extending around the outside
of the vacuum valve opening’” as required by Appellants’ independent
claims 1, 9, and 12, and dependent claims 2 and 3 by virtue of their
dependency on claim 1. Specifically, Appellants contend that what appear
to be two gas openings 10 in Senba’s Figure 3 embodiment (i.e., the purge
gas outlet in the seat embodiment) or four gas openings 10 in Senba’s Figure
5 embodiment (i.e., purge gas outlet in the gate embodiment) are discrete
openings and thus cannot be said to be an “essentially continuous outlet”
formed by “inner and outer walls” (Br. 9-11).
We agree with the Examiner’s ultimate finding that claims 1-3, 9, and
12 are anticipated by Senba.
As noted above, Appellants’ only argued distinction is that, unlike
Senba’s purge gas outlet, their purge gas outlet formed by “inner and outer
walls” is “essentially continuous” and “extending around the outside of the
vacuum valve opening” (Br. 9-11). To assess whether Senba discloses the
argued feature, we must first construe Appellants’ claim terms “essentially
continuous,” “extending around” and “inner and outer walls.”
In their Specification, Appellants describe how the purge gas outlet 48
is made with regard to the Figure 1 embodiment (i.e., the purge gas outlet in
the gate embodiment). Appellants describe that an opening 45 is formed in
the gate and gate insert 50 is inserted therein to form a gap or slit between
the gate 40 (i.e., outer wall) and gate insert 50 (i.e., inner wall) which forms
the purge gas outlet 48 (Specification 8). Appellants also disclose that the
gap 48 may be “a slit . . . [or] a series of holes or slots” (Specification 8).
From these disclosures, we construe “inner and outer walls” to mean two
walls that border a gap, slit, hole, or slot that is the purge gas outlet.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013