Appeal 2007-1002
Application 10/257,830
define a patented invention and limitations in the Specification are not to be
read into the claims. Hence, we find no merit in Appellant’s statement that
“the Victaulic clamp is structurally quite different from the tensioning means
of claim 8” (Br. 21, last para.). Claim 8 on appeal utterly fails to define any
structure for the clamp.
Regarding the § 102 rejection of claims 19, 20, and 21 over Yao, we do
not subscribe to Appellant’s argument that “Yao does not disclose a
passageway between the housing and the deflection surface as recited by the
claim” (Br. 23, last sentence). Rather, we concur with the Examiner’s
explanation at pages 28-29 of the Answer that passages 6 are located
between the deflection surface and the housing 1. As for Appellant’s
argument that Yao does not disclose a static bentonite-water suspension
mixer, we agree with the Examiner that the recitation “[s]tatic bentonite-
water suspension mixer” is a recitation of intended use that does not impart
any particular structure to the claimed mixer other than that specifically
recited in the claim. We also agree with the Examiner that Appellant has not
proffered the requisite objective evidence to support the suggestion that the
mixer of Yao is not capable of mixing a bentonite-water suspension.
Turning to the § 102 rejection of claims 19-21 over DE ‘962, we agree
with the Examiner that figure 1 of the reference depicts passages f located
between the deflection surface opposite the nozzle c and the housing h.
Also, as noted above, we find no merit in Appellant’s argument that the
reference mixer is not a bentonite-water suspension mixer.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013