Appeal No. 95-2939
Application 08/050,690
is only necessary that the disclosed channel be capable of
accepting a strap.
We also note that claims in a patent application are to be
given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with
the specification during prosecution of a patent application.
See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed.
Cir. 1989). In this regard, we interpret the language "an offset
planar portion on a top side of the strap accepting channel" of
claim 1 to refer to a planar portion which is offset from any
portion of the strap accepting channel.
Turning to the rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by
Osterlund, we note that only two limitations in claim 1 are
argued as differences between Osterlund and the subject matter of
claim 1. First, the appellant contends that Osterland does not
disclose a "strap accepting channel." Second, appellant contends
that Osterland does not disclose an "offset planar portion."
With regard to the first limitation, appellant argues that
rather than a strap accepting channel, Osterland discloses a one-
piece molding clip with a triangular shaped upper body portion
and that the top of the upper body portion includes toothed tabs
16 and 18 which are adapted to engage and retain the underside of
a trim strip or decorative item. However, as noted above, it is
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007