Appeal No. 1998-0204
Application 08/501,542
specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d
1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
A review of Appellants’ specification supports the
interpretation that when means nothing more than
simultaneously. We note for example page 20, lines 12-15,
wherein it states
“Preferably, such [bucking] current is provided for only a
split second (for example, 0.10 second,) while the control
means simultaneously causes actuator assemble 36 to pivot
actuator arm 50...” We also note page 23, lines 9 and 10,
wherein it states, “to energize bucking coil 85, while
simultaneously driving current to actuator coil 52... .” A
review of Appellants’ originally filed claims reveals nothing
more than simultaneously, this appearing in original dependent
claim 13. Thus, we find no justification for interpreting the
claim language “when ... begins” to be anything more than
“simultaneously”.
Appellants further argue, in accordance with the
“means for” claim language and In re Donaldson:
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007