Appeal No. 2001-1719
Application No. 09/069,907
In considering the language of this claim, we note that the recitation in lines 6 and 7
that the first appendage is “adapted to couple to a recessed portion of the
expansion card” is unclear if the expression “a recessed portion of the expansion card” is
given its ordinary and accustomed meaning. This expression would normally be
considered to refer to a cut-out area of the card, e.g., to recessed area 26 shown in
appellants’ Fig. 2, and it would not be evident how the appendage could couple to a cut-out
area, i.e., to an empty space. However, construing this claim in light of the appellants’
specification, In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir.
1997), we interpret the expression “a recessed portion of the expansion card” in claim 1
(and the similar expression in lines 9 and 10 of claim 15) to mean the portion of the
expansion card which lies on the opposite side of the recessed portion from the primary
surface (claim 1) or major surface (claim 15) of the bracket. This is consistent with
appellants’ disclosure as shown in Fig. 3 and described at, for example, page 7, lines 2 to
8.
Kurz discloses a bracket for mounting an expansion card, there being a first
appendage 60 extending outward from the rear face of primary surface 52 of the bracket
and coupled to expansion card 10 at its distal end 62. Kurz does not disclose or show that
the card 10 has a recessed portion, but the examiner takes the position,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007