Appeal No. 99-0520
Application 08/519,160
USPQ 57, 59 (CCPA 1936), and it is well settled that, before the PTO, claim language is to be given
its broadest reasonable meaning, "taking into account whatever enlightenment . . . may be afforded by
the written description contained in the applicant's specification." In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054,
44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In the present case, the limitation "single" cannot be
eliminated or ignored, and, looking to appellants' disclosure for enlightenment, we find no disclosure in
the specification that the front frame unit may include a longitudinally extending tube in addition to the
longitudinally extending tube 60. Therefore, giving weight to the term "single" in claim 11 while reading
the claim in light of the appellants' disclosure, we construe claim 11 as excluding bicycle structures in
which the front frame unit has more than one substantially longitudinally extending tube. Since the
bicycle disclosed by Trimble has more than one such tube, it does not anticipate claim 11.
Rejection (1) will therefore not be sustained.
Rejection (2)
We will not sustain this rejection essentially for the reasons given above with respect to
rejection (1). As noted above, the examiner cites Riva as being exemplary of bicycle frames with a
single main tube. However, the examiner does not assert that it would have been obvious in view of
Riva to use a single main tube in the Trimble bicycle instead of tubes 10 and 14, but rather contends
that the "comprising a single, longitudinally extending main tube" language is readable on Trimble. Since
we have held above that it is not, the rejection cannot stand.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007