Appeal No. 1996-1266
Application 08/246,804
sustain the rejection of claims 17 and 19 through 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Stolz or the rejection
of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Stolz as applied to claims 17 and 18 through 30, and further in
view of Barton.3
The dispositive issue in this appeal is the construction to be made of the phrase “modular, one
piece, passage unit” in the preamble of claim 17, and the last clause thereof: “the main shell, the front
unit closure wall, the mounting means, the rear unit closure wall, and the interlocking means all
constituting a single, one piece integral unit” (emphasis supplied). Similar language appears in claim
26. The examiner has focused on the term “integral” and has taken the position that the term “‘integral’
may be construed broadly to encompass parts rigidly secured together” citing, inter alia, In re Larson,
340 F.2d 965, 967-68, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965), In re Hotte, 475 F.2d 644, 647, 177
USPQ 326, 328 (CCPA 1973), In re Kohno, 391 F.2d 959, 157 USPQ 275 (CCPA 1968)
(answer, pages 5 and 6). Appellant submits that the authority relied on by the examiner “expressly
distinguishes ‘integral’ from the far more restrictive ‘one piece’ requirement of the claims on appeal”
(reply brief, paragraph bridging pages 1-2). Based on the record before us, we agree with appellant.
It is well settled that the terms of the appealed claims must be given the broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with appellant's specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill
in this art. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1053-56, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-30 (Fed. Cir. 1997);
In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). We find that one of
ordinary skill in this art would have reasonably determined from appellant’s specification (e.g., page 6,
lines 12-14, and Figs. 2 and 6) that that the phrases “modular, one piece, passage unit” and “single,
one piece integral unit” should be reasonably interpreted as denoting a “one piece” unit and not a
number of individual pieces integrated into a “unit.” Morris, 127 F.3d at 1055-56, 44 USPQ2d at
1029; compare Hotte, supra.
Accordingly, in comparing the appealed claims as we have construed them above with Stolz,
3The references relied on by the examiner with respect to the grounds of rejection are listed at page 2
of the answer. We refer to these references in our opinion by the name associated therewith by the
examiner.
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007