Appeal No. 2006-0686 Παγε 4
Application No. 09/407,053
The sole issue raised in this appeal is whether or not the claimed term "torus" is
met by Anderson's spring members 54 (see Figure 4) which have a shape more clearly
depicted in Figure 3. Anderson teaches (column 2, lines 33-42) that:
The shape of the elastomer body, as well as the shape of the central core
opening can also be varied to suit particular applications. For example, the body
can be cylindrical, oval, generally rectangular or square in configuration. The
core opening likewise can be circular, oval, rectangular or square in
cross-section. In the preferred embodiment the transverse shape of the core
opening and the body are similar and co-axial, so that the symmetry of the body
is maintained.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) applies to the verbiage
of the claims before it the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary
usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into
account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded
by the written description contained in the appellant's specification. In re Morris, 127
F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also In re Sneed, 710
F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983). 2004). Merriam-Webster's
Third New International Dictionary defines the term "torus" as "a surface or solid shaped
like a doughnut and formed by revolving a circle about a line in its plane without
intersecting it" (see Exhibit B attached to the brief). With this definition, it is our
determination that the claimed term "torus" is not met by Anderson's spring members 54
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007