Appeal No. 97-3110
Application 08/437,956
re Barr, 444 F.2d 588, 597, 170 USPQ 330, 339 (CCPA 1971).
In the present case, the ordinary, literal meaning of the
recitation concerning the direct attachment of the link arms
to the fuel tank in claims 1 and 18 signifies that there are
no intervening structural components between the link arms and
the tank. It is self-evident that the link arms cannot be
directly attached to the tank in the ordinary sense if the
link arms are attached to the tank through a bracket or some
other structural component. It therefore is inaccurate and
unclear to recite that the link arms are directly attached to
the fuel tank when, in fact, they are attached through the arm
brackets to the tank. In this regard, it is well settled that
claims in an application must accurately define the invention.
See In re Knowlton, 481 F.2d 1357, 1366, 178 USPQ 486, 492
(CCPA 1973) (the claim language must be clear and accurate so
as to define the metes and bounds of the invention).
Furthermore, claim 1, among others, is explicitly ambiguous in
that it first recites that the link arms are pivotally secured
to the pivoting portions (i.e., the arm brackets) and then
recites, in contradistinction, that the link arms are directly
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007