Appeal No. 98-1238
Application No. 08/115,187
section includes a perpendicularly extending fastening portion
or "ledge" 24 and lateral turned-in flanges (13 and 14 in the
case of the section 12, and 15 and 16 in the case of section
11).
Consistent with the appellant's specification, we can think 5
of no circumstances under which one of ordinary skill in this
art would construe the Knell's two-piece support bracket or
hanger to correspond to the claimed "elongated flat planar
strip" of material. As the examiner apparently recognizes,
there is nothing in the secondary reference to Huehnel, and
either Brislin or Uhrin (which have been applied only against
claim 9) that would overcome this deficiency of Knell.
In view of the foregoing, the rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 of claims 1-8 based on the combined teachings of Knell
and Huehnel, and claim 9 based on the combined teachings of
Knell, Huehnel and either Brislin or Uhrin are reversed.
5It is well settled that 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)).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007