Appeal 2007-1748
Application 10/679,908
The term “fit easily through” as used in the independent claims is a relative
term which we reasonable interpret to be achieved by Smith given that the opening
61 includes an inclined centering wall 62a at the receiving end thereof
(Smith, col. 5, ll. 48-50) which helps the tail 74 to easily fit through the opening
61.
Appellant most notably argues that the “[1] [p]robe handle 72 of the
coupling disclosed in Smith is the ‘tail’ of that coupling's male member and [2]
probe handle 72 has no associated ‘substantially rigid positioning member’ as
required by claims 1 - 9” (Appeal Br. 4-5). These arguments however assume that
because the end 72 of Smith connects to a manifold (Smith, col. 7, l. 9), it must be
read as the tail because a manifold is required by the claims and the connection to
it determines what end of the male member 13 of Smith is the tail (Appeal Br. 4).
We disagree.
It is our interpretation that the phrase “wherein the substantially rigid
positioning member is in contact with the inner bore of a manifold plate when the
tail is inserted through the manifold plate” is a functional limitation because it
describes how the at least one substantially rigid positioning member 26 functions
when used, in this case, as within a bore in a manifold. We thus find that: 1. the
tail 74 of the male member 13 in Smith is configured so as to be capable of being
easily inserted into a bore opening in a manifold diametrically sized relative to the
diameter of the tail 74 in Smith to slide within it, and 2. that the substantially rigid
positioning member 26 of Smith is likewise capable of being located in such a bore
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013