Appeal 2007-2193
Application 10/816,369
orifice and the collection chamber and the suction device in the reception
chamber (Br. 10-11). The Examiner does not dispute that Kuwahara does
not disclose physical, direct contact between the partition and the suction
device (Answer 8).
Rather, the Examiner construes the claim phrase “inlet orifice of said
partition coupling said collection chamber to said suction device in said
reception chamber” as including Kuwahara’s fluidic coupling of the dust
collection chamber 7 (i.e., collection chamber) to the motor 15 and fan 23
(i.e., suction device) in the tubular portion 13 (i.e., reception chamber) via an
annular spout 9 (i.e., inlet orifice) (Answer 3-4, 7). Moreover, the Examiner
indicates that the claims do not require “physical, direct connection”
between the partition and the suction device (Answer 8). We agree.
An “orifice” is synonymous with a “hole.”2 By virtue of the “inlet
orifice” being a “hole” the only possible way for an “orifice” (i.e., hole) to
couple the collection chamber and the suction device with one another is in a
fluidic manner (i.e., by virtue of the air passing from the collection chamber
to the suction device via the inlet orifice). Appellants’ Specification does
not use “expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction” in describing an
“inlet orifice” that would restrict the Examiner’s construction of such claim
term. American Academy of Science, 367 F.3d at 1365, 70 USPQ2d at 1831.
In light of the all the evidence, we determine that the Examiner has
reasonably, and consistent with Appellants’ Specification, construed the
claim phrase “inlet orifice of said partition coupling said collection chamber
to said suction device in said reception chamber.” American Academy of
2McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms, 1409 (5th Ed.2
1994).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013