Appeal No. 1996-1897
Application 08/064,145
the blades 1 and 2 is that such edges are highly unlikely to be damaged while the fixture 6 is
being broken up to allow for the removal of the treated workpiece.
. . . .
The improved fixture renders it possible to manipulate workpieces in a grinding machine or
another machine tool in a manner which would not be possible were the workpieces clamped
directly in the work holder of the machine tool. A workpiece can be properly held and/or its
orientation changed without coming into contact with any parts of the machine tool save for
the material removing implement or implements.
For completeness, we note that included in the above passage from Mushardt is the following
disclosure of a feature of the metal enclosure disclosed in this reference to be necessary for the removal
of the metal enclosure from the workpiece after processing (page 4, lines 64-74; see also, e.g., page 2,
lines 43-50, and page 3, lines 10-100):
Each of the webs 9, 11 is provided with one rated break point 10 so as to allow for
predictable disintegration of such webs when the workpiece is to be removed from the fixture
6 upon completion of the material removing treatment in a machine tool, particularly in a
grinding machine. When the webs 9, 11 are broken at the points 10, the components 7, 8 of
the fixture 6 are moved apart to afford access to the treated workpiece.
In comparing the claimed invention encompassed by the appealed claims as we have construed
them above, with the teachings of Mushardt set forth above, we find the following. We have
interpreted the teachings of this reference that we set forth above in light of the meaning that one of
ordinary skill in this art would give to the terms “ribs” and “webs” as used in the appealed claims in the
manner that we set forth above. We note that Mushardt uses the term “walls” and the phrase “ribs or6
webs,” the latter phrase indicating that the terms thereof are alternatively used to designate a
“connector” between “walls,” in the same manner that
6In evaluating the teachings of a reference, we must, of course, consider the specific teachings thereof
and the inferences one of ordinary skill in this art would have reasonably been expected to draw
therefrom. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782-83 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In
re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968). Thus, the definition of a term or
the meaning of a phrase in a reference must be construed within the context of the reference as
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in this art. See In re Salem, 553 F.2d 676, 682-83, 193 USPQ
513, 518 (CCPA 1977). In evaluating the relevance of the various teachings of the reference, we must
presume skill on the part of those of ordinary skill in this art. See In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743,
226 USPQ 771, 774 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007