Ex Parte Schwarz et al - Page 7

                Appeal 2007-2193                                                                                   
                Application 10/816,369                                                                             
                Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d at 1364, 70 USPQ2d at 1830.  The                                     
                Examiner’s reasonable and consistent construction of the above claim phrase                        
                includes fluidic coupling of the collection chamber to the suction device via                      
                an inlet orifice.                                                                                  
                       For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s § 102(b) rejection of                       
                argued claim 1 and non-argued dependent claims 2, 4-7, and 9 over                                  
                Kuwahara.                                                                                          

                DEPENDENT CLAIM 11                                                                                 
                       Appellants argue that the “intervention guard” recited in claim 1 and                       
                the “filter” of claim 11 are separate elements, such that the Examiner’s                           
                citation to Kuwahara’s filter 37 as disclosing both features is improper (Br.                      
                11-12).  Specifically, Appellants argue that if Kuwahara’s filter 37 is the                        
                “intervention guard” connected to the air guide funnel, then “it [i.e., filter                     
                37] cannot also be disposed upstream of the entry surface of the air guide                         
                funnel” as required of the filter in claim 11 (Br. 12).                                            
                       We have considered all of Appellants’ arguments and are unpersuaded                         
                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.”  American Academy of                             
                Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d at 1364, 70 USPQ2d at 1830.                                          
                       Claim 11 depends from claim 1 and recites, in relevant part, “at least                      
                one filter element . . . disposed upstream of said entry surface of said air                       
                guide funnel” (claim 11).  The Examiner construes “at least one filter                             

                                                        7                                                          

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013