Appeal 2007-1422
Reexamination Control 90/007,260
Patent 6,093,139
Second, the term “knife assemblies” needs interpretation. Appellant
argues that the term requires a plurality of knives (Br. p.7). In contrast, the
Examiner concludes that, given the broader reasonable interpretation, “[t]he
claimed limitation merely requires knife assemblies,” or multiple
components which comprise one or more knives (Answer 4-5).
Applicant’s specification supports the Examiner’s broad
interpretation. Applicant’s specification states that “on the cutting cylinder 5
rotating about axis 11, knife assemblies 6 are arranged, each including
cheekwoods 7 and a sponge pad 8” (Belanger, col. 3, ll. 14-16). Appellant
has not shown that the Examiner erred concluding that, given the broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with Applicant’s specification, the term
“knife assemblies” means one or more knives, each with multiple parts.
Third, we define the phrase “opposite to a sense of rotation.”
Applicant’s specification is silent as to any specific definition of this phrase,
so it must be given the broadest reasonable interpretation. Thus, any
clockwise motion is opposite to the sense of rotation of a counterclockwise
element. Likewise, any counterclockwise motion is opposite to the sense of
rotation of a clockwise element.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013