Appeal No. 97-3194 Page 10
Application No. 08/442,816
Based on our analysis and review of Damon and claims 44,
45, 3, 11 and 12, it is our opinion that there are no
differences.
The examiner had implicitly determined (answer, p. 2)
that Damon lacked "the arms of said second U-shaped member
being freely disengaged from the arms of said U-shaped rod
member when the device is unlocked and the members are
telescoped away from one another" as recited in independent
claim 44 and "when said lock means is unlocked, allowing the
members to be freely disengaged when telescoped away from one
another" as recited in claim 11. We do not agree.
We agree with the appellant's understanding of the
operation of Damon's lock as set forth on page 8 of the brief.
However, it is not apparent to us how the above-noted
limitations of claims 44 and 11 are not readable on Damon's
lock. In that regard, when the device of Damon is unlocked5
5It is axiomatic that, in proceedings before the PTO,
claims in an application are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification,
and that claim language should be read in light of the
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007