Appeal 2007-2193
Application 10/816,369
coupling said collection chamber to said suction device in said reception
chamber” (Br. 11). Appellants contend that Kuwahara requires that space
“c” be formed between the motor 15 and partition 8 to allow formation of a
Venturi effect (Br. 11). According to Appellants, coupling Kuwahara’s
motor 15 to the partition 8 would eliminate the space “c,” and thus the
sought after Venturi effect, such that Kuwahara does not disclose coupling
the collection chamber to the suction device in the reception chamber via an
inlet orifice (Br. 11).
We have considered all of Appellants’ arguments and find them
unpersuasive for the reasons below.
During examination, “claims … are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and … claim
language should be read in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re American Academy of
Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed.
Cir. 2004). An applicant “may demonstrate an intent to deviate from the
ordinary and accustomed meaning of a claim term by including in the
specification expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction, representing a
clear disavowal of claim scope.” American Academy of Science, 367 F.3d at
1365, 70 USPQ2d at 1831. Construing claims broadly during prosecution is
not unfair to the applicant, because the applicant has the opportunity to
amend the claims to obtain more precise claim coverage. Id.
Appellants’ claim 1 recites, in relevant part, “inlet orifice of said
partition coupling said collection chamber to said suction device in said
reception chamber” (claim 1). Appellants’ arguments regarding this claim
feature are premised on a direct, physical connection between the inlet
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013