Appeal No. 97-3755
Application 08/079,338
Having determined that the preamble constitutes a limitation to claim 17, we find
ourselves in agreement with the appellant that Larsson does not fairly teach or suggest an
“adapter” as claimed. More specifically, terms in a claim should be interpreted in a manner
consistent with the specification and construed as those skilled in the art would construe them. In
re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833, 15 USPQ2d 1566, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1990), Specialty Composites v.
Cabot Corp., 845 F.2d 981, 986, 6 USPQ2d 1601, 1604 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Sneed, 710
F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Here, consistent with the appellant’s
specification, one of ordinary skill in this art would interpret the above-noted structure identified
by the examiner in Paper No. 11 to be part of a connecting tool itself, rather than being a part of
an “adapter” for a hammer initiated powder actuated connecting tool.
Additionally, we observe that independent claim 17 sets forth “a cocking and trigger
assembly connected to the housing . . .” (emphasis ours). The levers 41, 46 of Larsson,
however, while functioning as a “trigger” assembly (see, generally, column 8), do not serve as
“cocking” mechanism or assembly as claimed. That is, it is the recoil of the cartridge 63 being
fired in Larsson which “cocks” the assembly (see, generally, column 9).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007