Appeal No. 1998-0502 Page 6
Application No. 08/571,323
We do not agree with Appellant. During prosecution, the
Patent and Trademark Office is required to give claims their
"broadest reasonable interpretation", consistent with the
specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d
1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). As pointed out by our reviewing
court, we must first determine the scope of the claim. "[T]he
name of the game is the claim." In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d
1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Appellant’s
contention, that such an excess torque level could vary
randomly from connector to connector is unconvincing and
unsubstantiated. It is precisely an excess torque level which
deforms Appellant’s connector. However, Appellant’s disclosed
torque level is designed to be insufficient to cause damage.
This torque level, insufficient to cause damage, is not recited
in claim 1. We find that, as stated by the Examiner and
admitted by Appellant, excess torque will deform a nut
connector. In addition, we find that connector damage will not
necessarily result, and even if it did, the claim is not so
limited.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007