Appeal No. 2005-0777
Application No. 10/081,881
is given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with
the specification. See In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152, 36
USPQ2d 1697, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 1995). We determine that the
broadest reasonable interpretation of “a deformable tube” is
simply a tube structure that “is capable of being deformed” to
any extent. We find no definition or guidelines in appellants’
specification which would narrow the meaning of this term. It is
clear from appellants’ specification that rubber cords 82 are
capable of deformation since they possess a “rebound force,”
although their “rebound force” is “weak” (specification, page 4,
ll. 4-9). The examiner has also found that rubber cord 82 has a
“deforming feature” (Answer, page 5, penultimate paragraph; see
also page 4, ll. 3-4).
In view of the claim construction previously discussed, we
determine that claim 1 on appeal is anticipated under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) by the admitted prior art. Claims 6 and 8 are also
included in this new ground of rejection. Claim 6 merely adds a
limitation regarding the capability of the tube to deform, and
this capability has been previously discussed. Claim 8 adds a
limitation as to the intended use of the apparatus, and this
limitation is not necessary to give meaning to the claim and
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007