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