Appeal 2007-0387
Application 09/756,688
1 other bearing structures are contemplated as “bearings” beyond simple bushings
2 already described as the prior art. While our reviewing Court has indicated a
3 willingness to let Applicants act as their own lexicographers and define terms that
4 are later used in the claims, such definitions must be clear and unequivocal before
5 the PTO will diverge from the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim terms.
6 In this instance, Appellant desires us to limit the term “bearing” to anti-
7 friction bearings having ball, roller, or needle anti-friction elements. This we
8 decline to do. The term “bearing” as it is used in the Specification and claims of
9 Appellant does not exclude a bearing such as the cutlass bearing shown in Lovell, a
10 bearing that is more sophisticated than the simple bushing distinguished in
11 Appellant’s Specification and a structure long recognized by those of ordinary skill
12 in the art as a “bearing.” See Lovell at col. 3, ll. 54-6 (“The Cutlass bearing is a
13 type of bearing well known to those in the art,…”). It is our view that the
14 Examiner’s construction of the claim limitations is correct, and we hold that
15 “bearing” in this instance does not implicitly include nonrecited features such as an
16 antifriction bearing with needles, rollers, or balls used as anti-friction elements.
17 Since we have interpreted the cutlass bearing shown in Lovell to be a
18 bearing within the scope of Appellant’s claim, we hold that Appellant’s claims on
19 appeal are anticipated by the Lovell reference. Therefore, it is our factual finding
20 that all claims on appeal lack novelty over the Lovell reference.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013