Appeal No. 2002-0265 Page 12
Application No. 08/787745
13 the requirement that the taper of the intermediate section “is more significant than
[the taper] in said tip and butt sections,” notwithstanding the fact that the only recitation
relating to “tip” in this claim is tip “end.” Claims 15, 16 and 20 require the butt “end” to
include “parallel sidewalls,” and claim 17 that the butt “end” “include at least one cross-
section diameter between .450 and .475 inches.” Claim 19 also states that the tapered
intermediate “section” has a more significant taper than “both said butt and said tip
ends.”
The common applicable definition of “end” is “the part of an area that lies at the
boundary,” “a point that marks the extent of something.”2 While an “end” could have a
circular cross section, to describe it as having a cylindrical cross section implies that the
“end” is not an end in accordance with the common definition, but has a length, that is, it
is a three dimensional element. This implication is confirmed by the limitations added in
other claims regarding “ends” having parallel sidewalls and taper. However, support for
a definition of “end” other than the common definition is not found in the specification.
In fact, the specification appears to support the proposition that “end” should be defined
by its common meaning. We hasten point out at this juncture that with regard to our
action concerning claims 1-6, we interpreted “end” as commonly defined, that is, to
mean the boundary or extent of the shaft, considering the absence of terminology in
2See, for example, Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, 1973, page 375.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007