Appeal No. 1998-1478
Application No. 08/517,604
mountain that are higher than the mountain's ridges. However,
for each ridge, there is no portion directly above the ridge.
In addition, the examiner states (First and Second
Supplemental Answers, page 3, and Third Supplemental Answer,
page 4) that "claims must be 'given the broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification'" and that
the terms therein "must be given their 'plain meaning' unless
they are defined in the specification." Then, the examiner
insists that the present application fails to define the word
"ridge." We agree with the examiner's statements, but we do
not agree that the examiner has given reasonable
interpretations that are consistent with the specification nor
that there are no definitions in the specification. As
explained above, the normal meaning of "ridge" is the
uppermost section or crest, contrary to the examiner's
interpretation. Further, appellants (at page 1, lines 14-15,
and page 4, lines 31-34, of the specification) define each of
ridges 19 and 29 of Figures 1 and 5, respectively, as having
two inclined sides and a flat apex. Thus, the location and
shape of the ridges is clearly defined. The examiner's
interpretation is inconsistent with the disclosed definition,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007