Appeal No. 97-0996
Application 08/287,432
indeed not uniform in thickness along this axis.
However, the claims only require forming a ring element
having a uniform thickness. As stated in the above
rejections, which were repeated from the final
rejection, the ring element of Ingersoll does indeed
have a uniform thickness around the circumference at
either terminal end, or at any point along the length
thereof. Therefore, the limitation of the ring “having
a uniform thickness” or “of a uniform thickness” as [2]
required by the claims is met by Ingersoll. This
interpretation of the limitation of a “uniform”
thickness not only conforms with the well accepted
definition of the word “uniform” but also conforms with
it’s [sic, its] broadest reasonable interpretation.
[answer, pages 4-5]
We appreciate the point the examiner is trying to make. We
agree with appellant, however, that the examiner’s position “is
simply not a reasonable interpretation of the plain meaning of
the words employed in the claims or of the structure and method
shown in Ingersoll” (brief, page 5). More particularly, while it
is true that terms in a claim are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation in proceedings before the PTO, this
interpretation must be consistent with the specification and the
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
Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833, 15 USPQ2d 1566, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1990);
2To the extent this quote is intended to reflect the
terminology of independent claim 5, it is inaccurate. Claim 5
does not include the word “a.”
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007