Appeal No. 97-3110
Application 08/437,956
impossible for the link arms to be
?directly attached? to the fuel tank as
claimed because they are already directly
attached to the arm brackets (12). See
also, in the specification, page 3, lines
33-35 and page 4, lines 21-24. [Answer,
page 3.]
In his main brief (see page 8), appellant concedes that
the link arms are connected through the arm brackets 12 to the
fuel tank, but nevertheless contends that the link arms are
directly attached to the tank and that such direct attachment
is effected through the arm brackets. This argument is 5
untenable.
It is well established patent law that words in a claim
are to be given their ordinary and accustomed meaning unless
it appears that the inventor used them differently in his
specification. Lantech, Inc. v. Keip Machine Company, 32 F.3d
542, 546, 31 USPQ2d 1666, 1670 (Fed. Cir. 1994). See also In
5 Appellant’s reply brief contains an additional discussion regarding the
rejection under the second paragraph of § 112. The examiner, however, has refused entry
of the reply brief (see Paper No. 21 mailed July 16, 1997).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007