Appeal No. 2000-1623
Application 09/030,385
examiner takes the position that this structure meets the
above-quoted portion of claim 1 in that the Johnstonbaugh
flanges are spaced away from the face of the panel a
sufficient distance to accommodate the thickness of panel 46
(answer, page 6), but we do not believe that claim 1 can be
read on Johnstonbaugh in this manner because
the core of Johnstonbaugh’s panel and the surface covering(s)
46 affixed thereto together constitute a panel; the core by
itself cannot be reasonably interpreted as being the panel
recited in claim 1.
“[D]uring examination proceedings, claims are given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification”. In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d
1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000). In the present case, the flanges
of appellant’s insert are disclosed as being spaced beyond the
surface of the panel so that they can support a removable
sheet of material. In light of this disclosure, we do not
consider it reasonable to interpret the claim 1 expression
“the surface of said panel” so broadly as to include the
surface of a core of a panel to which, as in Johnstonbaugh, a
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007