Court Opinions
State Laws
|
Ex Parte McCoskey et al - Page 3
Legal Research Home >
Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences > 2007 > Ex Parte McCoskey et al - Page 3
Appeal 2007-2429
Application 10/226,922
placed in a position to resolve the disagreement and, by extension, to provide a
meaningful review of this appeal.
Because the Specification defines a “collar” as “fillets 50 together with the
‘ramp-up’ transitions 43” (Spec. 11, ¶ 48 and claim 40), it appears that Appellants
are implying that a “fillet” is different from a “ramped transition portion.”
However, the scope of the claims in patent applications is determined “not solely
on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest
reasonable construction ‘in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by
one of ordinary skill in the art.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75
USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting In re Am. Acad. of Sci.
Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
Although claim terms must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification, without more, a “ramped transition portion” is a
sufficiently broad term that appears to encompass concave or curved transition
regions of the type shown by Noda, Weiler, or Fant. The source of the dispute in
this appeal is that neither the Examiner nor the Appellants have formally construed
the claim terminology "ramped transition portion" and "fillet" on the record.
Before a determination can be made as to whether the subject matter of
claims 8, 40-42, 56, and 58 is unpatentable over Brenneis in view of the other
references relied upon by the Examiner, it is imperative that the terms “ramped
transition portion” and “fillet” be construed on the record. This application is
therefore being remanded to the Examiner to make a determination, on the record,
3
Page: 1 2 3 4 5
Last modified: November 3, 2007
|
|
