Appeal 2007-0494
Application 10/447,446
Regarding the “essentially continuous” claim language, Appellants
also disclose that the gap 48 may be “a slit . . . [or] a series of holes or slots”
(Specification 8) and the “opening may be essentially continuous and
interrupted to a small degree without effecting [sic, affecting] the essentially
continuous flow around the seat opening” (Specification 10). From these
disclosures, we construe “essentially continuous” to include a series of
discrete holes or slots as long as the essentially continuous flow around the
seat opening is not affected.
Regarding the “extending around” claim language, Appellants
disclose that the purge gas outlet 48 “extends around the entirety of the seat
opening 32” (Specification 8) and “the use of continuous outlets around the
seating opening . . . permits more efficient use of the purge gas” (emphasis
added) (Specification 10). Moreover, Appellants argue in their Brief that
“extending around” means “. . . outside the vacuum valve opening . . .” (Br.
7). Based upon these disclosures, we construe “extending around” to mean
the purge gas outlet(s) is/are placed along the perimeter of but outside of the
valve opening.
Based on our construction of the above claim language, we find that
Senba satisfies Appellants’ only argued distinction. Specifically, regarding
Appellants’ Figure 1 embodiment having the gas purge port system in the
gate, Senba shows at least four gas ports 10 (i.e, “essentially continuous”)
that are placed along but outside the perimeter of the opening 2 (i.e., valve
opening) (i.e., “extending around”) (Senba, Figure 5). Moreover, Senba
discloses that the gas ports 10 are formed between an inner wall (i.e., the
portion of the valve plate 6 covering opening 2) and outer wall (i.e., the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013